Mandel v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 15 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 24906.,24906. |
| Citation | 165 Minn. 490,206 N.W. 727 |
| Parties | MANDEL v. BROOKS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; E. A. Montgomery, Judge.
Suit by Maurice Mandel against Charles N. Brooks. After findings for plaintiff, defendant appeals from an order denying a motion in the alternative for amended findings or a new trial. Order affirmed.
S. R. Child, Sherman Child, and Lewis Child, all of Minneapolis, for appellant.
D. E. La Belle, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
Action for rescission of a contract to buy real estate, on the ground of misrepresentation.
Plaintiff claimed: That, while snow was on the ground he bought two lots of defendant for the purpose of erecting a large apartment building thereon. That he informed defendant of the use intended, and, having been informed that the lots had been filled in, inquired as to that fact. That defendant assured him that he had owned the lots for 20 years, and knew that the fill thereon did not exceed 7 feet. Relying on this representation, plaintiff entered the contract to buy the lots for $4,300, and made a part payment of $250. That thereafter he learned that the lots were filled to a depth of over 25 feet with ashes and other rubbish, and because thereof no secure foundation for the building he intended to erect could be had without expending more than $4,000 in piling and reinforced concrete work, and that before he ascertained such fact he had expended for examination of the abstract, survey of the lots, and architect's fees $150.50. The court made findings in favor of plaintiff, directed a cancellation of the contract, and a money judgment for $400.50. The appeal is from a motion in the alternative for amending findings or a new trial.
The court might well have found defendant's testimony true, and accordingly that there were no representations made in respect to the lots, and no inquiry in regard to their having been filled until some time after the contract was executed. But the court saw fit to accept plaintiff's testimony as true, and there is nothing in the record which would justify an appellate court to disturb the findings made. The court below may have overlooked a discrepancy of $5 in the proof in respect to the cost of having the abstract examined, but this appears not to have been called to the attention either of the trial court or this court, and should not reverse. It may be corrected before entry of judgment.
We do not think there...
To continue reading
Request your trial