Klein v. Borchert

• Decision Date: 29 May 1903
• Docket Number: 13,378 - (61)
• Citation: 95 N.W. 215,89 Minn. 377
• Parties: CHARLES KLEIN v. F. H. BORCHERT and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 215

89 Minn. 377

CHARLES KLEIN v. F. H. BORCHERT and Another

Nos. 13,378 - (61)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 29, 1903

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Douglas county, entered pursuant to the findings and order of Searle, J. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Contract between Attorney and Client.

Owing to the confidential relation between an attorney and his client, and the natural influence the former has over the latter, courts scrutinize very closely all transactions between them by which the attorney acquires any property of the client; and the burden of establishing the perfect fairness, adequacy of consideration, and the good faith of the transaction is upon the attorney.

Decision Sustained by Findings.

The conclusions of law in the case at bar are sustained by the findings of fact.

F. H Borchert, for appellants.

H Jenkins, for respondent.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Action to rescind a contract for the exchange of certain personal property, and for damages, in which plaintiff had judgment, from which defendants appeal.

The facts are as follows: It appears that plaintiff was the owner of a stock of goods, which he exchanged with defendants for a twenty-five horse power Robinson & Cary engine owned by them. Prior to this exchange plaintiff was involved in some litigation concerning the stock of goods, and defendant Borchert, who is an attorney at law, represented him as his attorney in such litigation; and, at the time of the exchange referred to, the relation of attorney and client existed between them. The goods exchanged for the engine were agreed by the parties to be of the value of $635, and the engine of the value of $500; the difference, $135, being paid by defendants in money. Plaintiff understood at the time of the exchange that the engine was eight or nine years old, and in good working condition, and it was agreed that the same should be delivered to him at once. As a matter of fact, the engine and boiler were some eighteen or nineteen years old, and, by reason of hard usage, practically worthless. Plaintiff delivered to defendants a bill of sale of the goods, and they took possession of them and converted the same to their own use. The engine and boiler were never delivered to plaintiff. The same were at the time of the exchange in the possession of a third party, who refused to surrender them when demanded by plaintiff. Immediately upon discovering the worthless character of the engine and boiler, plaintiff attempted to rescind the contract, and demanded of defendants a return of the goods, which they refused to deliver to him, and this action followed.

The action was tried by the court without a jury, who made findings of fact and conclusions of law, awarding judgment for plaintiff. The court does not affirmatively find that defendants intentionally deceived plaintiff in the exchange of the property by misrepresentations as to the condition of the engine and boiler, or otherwise; nor is there any express finding that they were guilty of fraud, nor that any undue influence was...