McMullen v. Harris
| Decision Date | 12 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 29,014.,29,014. |
| Citation | 147 N.W. 164,165 Iowa 703 |
| Parties | MCMULLEN v. HARRIS ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Mills County; Thos. Arthur, Judge.
Action at law for recovery of damages for alleged fraud perpetrated by defendants in certain real estate transactions. The material facts are stated in the opinion. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.Genung & Genung, of Glenwood, and D. E. Whitfield and A. E. Cook, both of Malvern, for appellants.
Gillilland & Logan and John Y. Stone, all of Glenwood, for appellee.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, who are real estate dealers, proposed to him to enter into a partnership or joint adventure with them for the purchase of a section of land in Nebraska for their mutual benefit and profit; the plaintiff to have a half interest in the investment, and the defendants together to have the other half. He further alleges that, among the inducements offered for entering upon said venture, defendants represented that the land could be purchased for $20 per acre, which was the lowest price for which it could be obtained, and that to secure the same each purchaser would be required to pay $500 as an advance installment; the remainder to be paid when the conveyance was delivered. It is further alleged that plaintiff had no knowledge of the facts so represented except as stated by the defendants, and, believing and relying thereon, he entered into an agreement with the defendants by which he was to contribute to the said purchase one-half of the alleged purchase price of the land at $20 per acre; the title to be first taken in the name of the defendants, who undertook and agreed to thereafter convey an undivided one-half to him. Still relying upon and believing said representations, plaintiff says he did thereupon pay the advance payment of $500 and later sufficient to make the entire contribution of $6,400, being one-half the alleged purchase price of the land, and defendants did then or soon thereafter convey to him a one-half interest therein. He further alleges that the statements and representations made to him by defendants as to the purchase price of the land were false and fraudulent and were so for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding him; that in truth and in fact the owner of the land from whom it was purchased was asking and demanding only $12 per acre therefor, and defendants in fact purchased it at that price, with the result that, while plaintiff contributed the full sum of $6,400, defendants in fact contributed $1,280 and no more. This alleged fraud was not discovered by him, he avers, until after the transaction had been consummated and he had parted with his money. He therefore asks to recover from defendants as damages all that part of the purchase money paid by him in excess of one-half of the actual price expended by the defendants and for interest thereon. The defendants deny the fraud charged against them and deny that they ever proposed or did in fact enter into any partnership or joint adventure with plaintiff with reference to said land or its purchase. It is their claim that they purchased the land themselves on their own account and for their own profit and that the sum and substance of their dealings with plaintiff were simply to sell and convey to him an undivided half of said land at the agreed price of $20 per acre. The cause was tried to a jury which found for the plaintiff for the full amount of his claim.
[1] I. The first point made by the appellants is that the verdict is without support in the evidence.
The record is not open to that objection. The allegations essential to plaintiff's case are: First, that the parties entered into a joint or partnership agreement by which plaintiff and defendant firm were to contribute in equal shares to the purchase price of the land and have like share in the proceeds and profits of the venture; second, that defendants represented to plaintiff that the actual purchase price of the land was $20 per acre, and he, relying upon the truth of said representations, contributed to the payment of the property one-half of its alleged cost on that basis; and, third, that in truth the real and actual cost of the land was but $12 per acre, which fact was concealed from the plaintiff and did not come to his knowledge or notice until after his money had been paid and the deal consummated. The denial of these allegations raises the issue of fact upon which the result must turn. Each of these allegations is supported by competent testimony on the part of plaintiff. True, this testimony is in most respects denied by the defendants, who swear there was no contract or agreement for a joint undertaking in the purchase of the land and that the relation between them and plaintiff was that of buyer and seller, or grantors and grantee, and nothing more.
[2] The question thus raised is one of fact the decision of which depends upon the credibility of the witnesses and the weight and value of their testimony. It is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial