Laird v. Keithley
Decision Date | 04 March 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 18811.,18811. |
Citation | 201 S.W. 1138 |
Parties | LAIRD v. KEITHLEY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; James D. Barnett, Judge.
Action by Joseph B. Laird against Edwin W. Keithley. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant in the circuit court of Rails county to recover the sum of $25,000 damages sustained by him on account of fraudulent representations and deceit alleged by him to have been made and practiced by the defendant in effecting an exchange of a farm situate in Rails county, Mo., for a farm owned by plaintiff in Fulton county, Ill. The case was by change of venue sent to the circuit court of Audrain county, where a trial was had before the court and a jury, which resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $11,000, from which the defendant duly appealed to this court.
The petition is quite lengthy, and sets forth with much detail the fraudulent representations made to and deceit practiced upon plaintiff by the defendant. The answer admits the exchange of the farms as charged in the petition, denied all other allegations of the petition, and pleads the five-year statute of limitations, the same being section 1889, R. S. 1909. The reply was a general denial.
The plaintiff's evidence tended to show the following facts: The plaintiff owned a farm of 320 acres located in Fulton county, Ill., and one Van B. Elzea owned another consisting of 525 acres situate in Ralls county, Mo. The former was of middle age, of limited education, a farmer by occupation, with no experience outside of farming. He was born and reared on the farm he traded to defendant, the larger part of which he acquired from his father, and the remainder from time to time from his neighbors, but had no other experience in buying or selling real estate. At the date of the contract of trade which was November 13, 1907, the plaintiff's farm was incumbered with a deed of trust for $7,500. At and prior thereto he was cultivating the farm with the aid of his three sons. This farm was fairly well improved with all except 10 or 12 acres in cultivation. All the evidence for the plaintiff tended to show that this farm was worth from $80 to $90 per acre, and there was no testimony to the contrary, except that of defendant who testified that he sold the farm for a sum somewhat less than that.
The moving cause of plaintiff's desire to sell his farm was to purchase a large one in order to give his three sons better opportunities to advance their own interest. The one he owned was not large enough for all of them. He had never traded lands before, and did not wish to do so upon this occasion, and so expressed himself repeatedly, but wished to sell his farm and purchase another.
With that idea in view he spoke to one Beam, a live-stock auctioneer, and inquired if he knew of a prospective purchaser. The latter replied that he would look around for one. Beam's employment was limited to the procurement of a purchaser. On the next day Beam brought the witness A. E. Meredith to see plaintiff, and the trade in question had its inception in this visit, and the matter was negotiated in the following manner, as shown by the testimony of Laird, the plaintiff, viz.:
The evidence also tended to show:
That Keithley, in anticipation of Laird's visiting the Elzea farm, set out to conceal certain facts concerning the farm. He made a trip to the farm and gave the following instructions to a farm hand there, Will Hawkins, with references to conceal certain disadvantages of the farm. Will Hawkins testified as follows:
That defendant had previously engaged A. E. Meredith as his agent to sell or trade the Missouri farm, who testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
May Department Stores Co. v. Union E.L. & P. Co., 34288.
...Statute of Limitations does not apply because of defendant's fraudulent concealment. Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531; Laird v. Keithley, 201 S.W. 1138; Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522; Thaler v. Niedermeyer, 185 Mo. App. 250; Cottrell v. Krum, 10 Mo. 397. (a) The Statute of Limitatio......
-
Cohen v. Blank
...Johnson, 236 Mass. 379, 128 N.E. 634 (1920); Michigan, People v. Genther, 218 Mich. 289, 187 N.W. 241 (1922); Missouri, Laird v. Keithley, 201 S.W. 1138 (Mo.) (1918); New Mexico, Thrams v. Block, 43 N.M. 117, 86 P.2d 938 (1938); Ohio, McMahon v. Spitzer, 29 Ohio App. 44, 163 N.E. 37 (1928);......
-
Baylies v. Boom
...his own investigation, and not on the representation. In such case he could not have been misled by the seller." See also Laird v. Keithley, (Mo. Sup.) 201 S.W. 1138; Hoyt v. First National Bank, 247 S.W. Sullivan v. Helbing, 66 Cal.App. 478, 226 P. 803, 26 C. J., Sec. 75, p. 1164. The tria......
-
Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate, Inc.
...Johnson, 236 Mass. 379, 128 N.E. 634 (1920); Michigan, People v. Genther, 218 Mich. 289, 187 N.W. 241 (1922); Missouri, Laird v. Keithley, 201 S.W. 1138 (Mo.) (1918); New Mexico, Thrams v. Block, 43 N.M. 117, 86 P.2d 938 (1938); Ohio, McMahon v. Spitzer, 29 Ohio App. 44, 163 N.E. 37 (1928);......