Magnuson v. Burgess
| Decision Date | 23 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | 18,377 - (211) |
| Parties | JOSEPH I. MAGNUSON and Another v. ROBERT BURGESS and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Cook county to recover $1,400 for fraudulent representations in the sale of a stallion. The case was tried before Nelson, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $1,200 in favor of plaintiffs. From an order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appealed. Affirmed on condition plaintiffs consent to a reduction of the verdict to $600.
Fraud -- election of remedy.
1. Where the sale of property is effected by fraud and deceit the defrauded party may rescind the contract on discovering the fraud, or affirm the same and retain the property.
Measure of damages.
2. Where he elects to affirm the contract by retaining the property, the measure of his damages for the fraud is the difference between the actual value of the property and the price paid, together with such special damage as he may have suffered in consequence of the fraud.
Depreciation in value of use.
3. Even though the property be sold for a particular use, the defrauded party, where he affirms the contract, can have no recovery for depreciation in the value of the use of the property, accruing after discovery of the fraud.
Verdict -- evidence.
4. Evidence held to support the verdict, and that there were no errors in the exclusion or admission of evidence.
Barnett & Richardson, for appellants.
E. H Canfield, for respondent.
Appeal from an order denying a new trial after verdict for plaintiffs.
The short facts are as follows: In February, 1906, defendants sold and delivered to plaintiffs, for the consideration of $1,200, a horse represented to be a registered full-blood imported Belgian stallion, named "Jupiter d'Orm." The horse was purchased by plaintiffs for breeding purposes. At the time of the sale defendants delivered to plaintiffs certain pedigree papers and certificates, in and by which it was certified by an American horse-breeders association, and by a like Belgian association, that the horse was Jupiter d'Orm, was foaled in Belgium, and imported to this country by defendants. Plaintiffs thereafter made use of the horse for breeding purposes, and in the belief that he was the animal represented, and charged compensation for his services accordingly. They made application to register the horse in the books of the Minnesota Breeders Association, an organization authorized by chapter 436, p. 618, Laws 1907, and the application was refused, for the reason, as we understand the record, that the certificates of pedigree delivered to plaintiffs at the time of the sale, and which were presented to the association in connection with the application, were not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that plaintiffs' horse was the one therein described. At about this time, and by refusal of this board to register the horse, plaintiffs discovered, as they now claim, that the horse delivered to them was not the one bargained for, was not Jupiter d'Orm, or an imported animal, on the contrary was what is known in the horse-market as a grade stallion. Plaintiffs did not, at the time of making this discovery, or at any subsequent time, offer to rescind the contract by returning the horse to defendants, or otherwise, but continued to make use of him for the purposes for which he was purchased until April, 1912, when this action was commenced. The complaint alleges that at the time of the sale and as a part of the transaction defendants represented that the horse was a full-blood imported Belgian named Jupiter d'Orm, and duly registered as such in the books of an American Association of Imported Belgian Horses, and also by a similar association in Belgium, certificates from which associations were delivered with the horse. The complaint further alleges that the representations so made were false and fraudulent and known to be so by defendants; that the certificates of pedigree so delivered were spurious and did not belong to the horse delivered to plaintiffs. The complaint also alleges that proper certificates of pedigree are essential to the value of such horses, and that, by reason of the spurious character of the certificates delivered to plaintiffs, they were specially damaged in the sum of $800; and also that, upon discovering the fraud, plaintiffs were compelled to reduce the charge for the services of the horse to that usually charged for grade animals, in consequence of which plaintiffs were further damaged during the years 1909, 1910 and 1911, in the sum of $800; the horse is alleged to be of no greater value than $600. The answer admitted the sale of the horse as alleged in the complaint, and that the horse was represented as an imported Belgian, known as Jupiter d'Orm, and alleged that the representations were in all respects true, and that defendants in fact delivered the horse described in the certificates of pedigree to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs had a verdict for $1,200, the full amount of the purchase price of the horse, though the evidence tended to show that he was of the value, as a grade stallion, of the sum of $400; the complaint alleged that he was worth no more than $600. The amount of the verdict is explained by the fact that the court permitted the jury to include in their award of damages the loss claimed by plaintiffs to have been suffered after discovery of the fraud by the reduction in the service charges of the horse. Defendants moved for a new trial upon various grounds, and the motion was in all things denied.
The assignments of error present three principal questions, namely: (1) Whether the evidence supports the verdict; (2) whether the court erred in the admission of evidence, and, (3) whether the court erred in permitting the jury to include in plaintiffs' damages the alleged loss in service charges after discovery of the fraud.
1. The issues presented by the pleadings narrowed down at the trial to the question whether plaintiffs received the horse Jupiter d'Orm. The evidence leaves no fair doubt of the fact that Jupiter d'Orm was a full-blood Belgian stallion, and that he was imported from Belgium by defendants in August, 1905, nor was there any issue under the pleadings concerning the representations made by defendants at the time of the sale, though their truth or falsity was in issue. The principal question litigated was whether the particular horse was the one delivered to plaintiffs. Defendants insisted that the identical horse was delivered, while plaintiffs contended to the contrary. There was no claim by defendants that a mistake had been made and the wrong horse delivered. On the contrary, the evidence offered tended to show that they were thoroughly familiar with this horse and by their evidence traced him from Belgium to this country and into the possession of plaintiffs. So that if the horse Jupiter d'Orm was not in fact delivered to plaintiffs, but some other horse, the falsity of the representations appears entitling plaintiffs to a recovery of such damages as they suffered in consequence thereof. The jury found that the particular horse was not delivered to plaintiffs, and defendants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial