Kroll v. Coach

• Decision Date: 15 May 1905
• Citation: 80 P. 900,45 Or. 459
• Parties: KROLL et al. v. COACH.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

80 P. 900

45 Or. 459

KROLL et al. v. COACH.

Supreme Court of Oregon

May 15, 1905

Petition for rehearing. Denied.

For former opinion, see 78 P. 397.

WOLVERTON, C.J.

The appellant, by his petition for rehearing, strenuously insists that the entire arrangement or contract subsisting between the parties touching the land, the subject of the purchase was merged in the warranty deed executed by Coach and delivered to Kroll' and Sparrow, and that henceforth the latter were precluded from setting up any other contractual relations than such as the deed witnesses. The rule suggested that all previous and contemporary negotiations and agreements concerning the sale and purchase of land merge in the deed of conveyance, so that it becomes an express entire, and final contract between the parties, may be conceded, but it is difficult to understand that it can have the least application to the case at bar. Of course, the fact that the deed was made was pertinent and strong evidence that the parties were dealing concerning the land in proportions as indicated by its terms; but it cannot stand as the final and conclusive contract between them, so as to exclude or preclude any other condition that the law might entail, where the transaction from the beginning is attacked for fraud, and it is made to appear that the grantees were induced to accept the conveyance through the deceit and fraudulent intrigue of the grantor. Thus it was the theory of plaintiffs that, while the deed conveyed to them all the land they bargained for yet it did not convey all that their money paid for, and consequently all that their money paid for, and consequently all that they were entitled to, looking throughout the transaction, and considering the relations the parties sustained to each other, and the method adopted by which the defendant procured the money of plaintiffs with which to complete the purchase. The scheme was one calculated to mislead and defraud the plaintiffs, and we so found, after a very careful scrutiny of the testimony that such was its legal effect, and that defendant purchased more land with their money than they obtained a deed for, and that he ought to render up to them the overplus, having become trustee thereof ex maleficio for their use. Now, to say that the deed concludes the plaintiffs absolutely, as against the fraudulent intrigue of the defendant, when accepted and received without knowledge of the...