Kraus v. National Bank of Commerce of Mankato
| Citation | 167 N.W. 353,140 Minn. 108 |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | 20,824 |
| Parties | HENRY C. KRAUS v. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF MANKATO |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Blue Earth county by the guardian of the estate of William A. Bedbury, incompetent, to recover $2,500 for false representations in the sale of a house and lot. The case was tried before Comstock, J., who when plaintiff rested granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying his motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Vendor and purchaser -- action by purchaser for deceit -- reliance on personal inquiry.
1. If the buyer does not rely upon the representations of the seller but upon his own investigations, he cannot maintain an action for deceit; but, if he made only a partial investigation and relied in part upon such representations and was deceived to his injury, he may maintain the action.
Vendor and purchaser -- when plaintiff is deceived by false representations.
2. He cannot base an action for deceit upon representations which he knew were false, but, if he did not know that they were false, and was in fact deceived to his injury, he may maintain an action, although the circumstances may have been such that a person of prudence and alertness ought not to have been deceived.
Vendor and purchaser -- question for jury.
3. The evidence made a question for the jury as to whether the buyer had in fact been deceived by false representations.
Vendor and purchaser -- evidence respecting mental capacity of purchaser.
4. The court unduly restricted the evidence offered for the purpose of showing that the mental capacity of the buyer had become impaired.
C. J Laurisch, Pfau & Pfau, and H. A. Johnson, for appellant.
H. L. & J. W. Schmitt and Hughes & Ellsworth, for respondent.
In July, 1914, defendant sold a house and lot located in the outskirts of the city of Mankato to William A. Bedbury. In the following December, the probate court found that Bedbury was not competent to care for his property and appointed plaintiff guardian of his estate. Shortly thereafter plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentations alleged to have been made in effecting the sale of the house and lot to Bedbury. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, the case was dismissed on the ground that the evidence failed to establish a cause of action, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
Dismissing an action for failure of proof is warranted only when there is no evidence which, if believed by the jury, would justify them in finding a verdict for the plaintiff. 3 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. §§ 9753, 9754 And the principal question presented is whether the evidence made an issue for the jury as to whether Bedbury had been fraudulently deceived to his injury concerning the property sold to him.
According to the testimony of Bedbury, the agents of defendant represented that the property was worth $5,000 and was renting for $18 to $20 per month; and that the house was modern and had electric lights, a bath, and water from the waterworks upon both the first floor and the second floor. The house, in fact, had none of the modern conveniences mentioned; it had no electric lights, no bath, and no provision for water except a cistern and cistern pump. There was also evidence tending to show that the property was worth less than $2,000 and that the rental was materially less than had been stated. The evidence was sufficient to make a question for the jury as to whether the representations were made and were untrue, but in order to give rise to a cause of action in deceit it must also appear that Bedbury relied upon them to his injury. He testified unequivocally that he made the purchase in reliance upon the representations stated; but defendant contends that, instead of relying upon any representations made by its agents, he examined the property for himself and relied upon his own judgment. It is well settled that, where the buyer does not rely upon the representations of the seller, but makes a full investigation himself, and then acts in reliance upon the information obtained in his own investigation, he is not in position to charge the seller with deceit. Meland v. Youngberg, 124 Minn. 446, 145 N.W. 167, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 755, and cases cited therein. But it is also well settled in this state that where he makes only a partial investigation, and relies in...
To continue reading
Request your trial