Match v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 09 January 1878
• Citation: 38 Mich. 1
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: William Match and Wife v. Clark A. Hunt and Wife

38 Mich. 1

William Match and Wife v. Clark A. Hunt and Wife

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 9, 1878

Submitted October 3, 1877

Appeal from Barry.

Bill to rescind. The facts are in the opinion.

Decree modified, cause remanded.

Sweezey & Knappen for complainants. False statements of value support a liability in damages when made in detail (Van Epps v. Harrison, 5 Hill 70; Hubbell v Meigs, 50 N. Y., 480; Dawes v. King, 1 Starkie 75) whether with personal knowledge (Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246; Cronk v. Cole, 10 Ind. 485; Simar v Canaday, 53 N. Y., 298; McClellan v. Scott, 24 Wis. 81) or not (Steinbach v. Hill, 25 Mich. 78; Adams' Eq., 177, n. and cases) and even if the party deceived had means of knowledge, id., 177, n. and cases; Webster v Bailey, 31 Mich. 36; and a contract based on them may be rescinded, Miner v. Medbury, 6 Wis. 295; Rood v. Chapin, Walk. Ch., 79. The representations may be oral, Indianapolis Ry. Co. v. Tyng, 63 N. Y., 653; Wardell v. Fosdick, 13 Johns. 325; Ward v. Wiman, 17 Wend. 193. Tender of reconveyance or repayment is not necessary before bringing suit to rescind, Dunn v. Amos, 14 Wis. 115; Hanscom v. Hinman, 30 Mich. 419; it is enough if complainant be satisfied that the court will place defendant in as good a situation as before (Allerton v. Allerton, 50 N. Y., 670), or if he offers to do whatever the court adjudges equitable, Harding v. Handy, 11 Wheat. 103. If an offer to reconvey is promptly made, it is no defense that the defendant has parted with the property, Hammond v. Pennock, 61 N. Y., 145.

Smith & Knappen for defendants. Statements made in good faith in a bargain are merged in an express warranty, Horner v. Fellows, 1 Doug. [Mich.], 54; Welsh v. Carter, 1 Wend. 189; Martin v. Hamlin, 18 Mich. 164, and cases cited. Unless fraud is shown beyond reasonable doubt (Buck v. Sherman, 2 Doug. [Mich.], 176) a sale cannot be rescinded except for breach of written guaranty (Culver v. Avery, 7 Wend. 386) nor unless complainants can restore the property in the condition in which it was when the fraud was discovered, Carroll v. Rice, Walk. Ch., 381; De Armand v. Phillips, id., 186.

OPINION

Graves, J.

This bill was filed in order to rescind an exchange of lands made in February, 1874, on account of fraud. The court decreed for complainants and the defendants appealed.

The defendants Hunt and wife formerly lived in the town of Hope in Barry county, and some time after the civil war removed to Cedar county in Missouri. In 1873 they returned to Barry county, reaching the town of Johnstown July 6th. They held a place of one hundred acres in Cedar county, and lived upon it some time during their stay in Missouri. The title was in Mrs. Hunt. The complainants Match and wife resided in the town of Baltimore in Barry county on a farm of eighty acres, the title to which was in complainant William. This farm was a very good one, and worth from $ 3,000 to $ 4,000. It was incumbered by two mortgages made by complainants, one December 26th, 1871, to Evaline Beaman, for $ 1,000, payable in five years, with interest at ten per cent.; the other December 23d, 1873, to Levi Bristol, for $ 242, payable in two years, with interest at ten per cent.

After some negotiation between complainants and defendants, they completed an exchange of their farms February 20th, 1874. By mutual arrangement the Barry county land was deeded to Mrs. Hunt and the Missouri land to Mrs. Match. In the trade the Barry county place was valued at $ 3,800 and the Missouri land at $ 1,800, and the former was to be taken by Mrs. Hunt subject to the mortgage debts, and the remaining difference was to be paid down by Hunt in cash. This difference was ascertained to be $ 736.93, and was paid.

Complainants had never seen the Missouri land, and its character and surrounding advantages were particularly explained to them on the part of defendants in a series of representations. Complainants gave defendants possession of the farm in Barry county, and, after selling off their personal effects, they proceeded to the place in Cedar county, Missouri. They reached the place about April 9th, 1874, and, after remaining a few days, returned. Very shortly afterwards complainant Match informed Hunt that the place was not as represented, and asked him what he intended to do about it, and he replied in substance that he should do nothing. In a few days this bill was filed. It set out with much particularity the representations claimed to have been made; that they were relied on and were false. As alleged they were material. The answer substantially admitted the fact of making all the imputed representations except one relating to the nearness of a railroad station, and it was claimed that what was stated on that subject was to the effect only that when they removed from the farm the Kansas City & Memphis Railroad was nearly graded to the village of Greenville, some thirteen miles distant, and that it was thought it would soon be completed to that place and when so completed, a station would undoubtedly be placed there, as it was a village of some little importance.

The answer insisted that all the representations actually made were true. Among other things represented was the capacity of the farm for tillage and the supply of water. It was distinctly represented that the whole farm except about eight acres consisted of good tillable land, and that there were two springs of water and a good well. An endeavor seems to have been made by the defense to reduce this representation about the springs and well to a sense which would render it nearly meaningless. It was sought to produce an opinion that the springs were not described as perennial or the well as durable, but as affording water only when it was not very dry. The attempt failed. The case shows they were in fact referred to as durable. But if the words had not been as claimed by complainants, there could have been no question about the meaning and effect. The idea conveyed, and intended to be conveyed, could not be doubted. No play upon terms could avert the sting of the representation. The knowledge of its reception in a sense rendering it deceptive would be enough to affect the conscience of the utterer.

Now the evidence is decisive that about sixty acres of the farm are unfit for cultivation, and that it is extremely questionable to say the least whether this portion could be made fit by an outlay of more than it would be worth after being brought into condition. And it is equally clear that during the dry season there is no water. The well fails at such times, and the spots mentioned as springs furnish no water. Again, it appears clear that the farm was represented as being within thirteen miles of a railroad, and between three and four of a grist mill and saw mill, whilst in fact the nearest railroad is about twenty-five miles distant, if not farther, the nearest saw-mill ten, and the nearest grist-mill thirteen miles. It is true that when Hunt left the farm in Cedar county for a place some few miles distant there were mills within about three miles and a half; but they were abandoned before he removed from Missouri, and the statement when made concerning the close vicinity of milling accommodations was untrue and deceptive.

The case is clear that in regard to things material and substantial the complainants were deceived by means the defendants used, and which were well fitted to cause such deception, and which they knew, or had good reason to know were actually causing it. There was ample ground for an appeal to equity. Converse v. Blumrich, 14 Mich. 109; Beebe v. Young, id., 136; Rood v. Chapin, Walk. Ch., 79; Jones v. Wing & Dean, Har. Ch., 301; Steinbach v. Hill, 25 Mich. 78; Beebe v. Knapp, 28 Mich. 53; Bristol v. Braidwood, id., 191; Stone v. Covell, 29 Mich. 359; Mizner v. Kussell, id., 229; Webster v. Bailey, 31 Mich. 36; Browne v. Moore, 32 Mich. 254; Starkweather v. Benjamin, id., 305.

On occasion of the conveyance, Mrs. Hunt delivered a written statement which contained a portion of the representations relied on, but not all. Several which had been previously communicated orally were not embraced. It is now urged as matter of law that these last were cut off by the deeds and other writings, or merged in them. This is not so. All authority is the other way. There was room for fraudulent deception by parol or writing, or both. If in the perpetration of a cheat writing is used, it does not imply that oral statements could not concur. The right to impeach the transaction by parol on the ground of fraud is unquestionable. Whether as matter of fact...