Miller v. Bricker

• Decision Date: 10 May 1912
• Docket Number: Nos. 17,490 - (46).,s. 17,490 - (46).
• Citation: 117 Minn. 394
• Parties: H. A. MILLER v. MINNIE L. BRICKER and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

117 Minn. 394

H. A. MILLER v. MINNIE L. BRICKER and Others.¹

Nos. 17,490 - (46).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 10, 1912.

Action in the district court for Anoka county against Minnie L. Bricker, E. J. Bricker and Rudolph Babler to recover $4,500 damages for alleged fraudulent representations regarding the title to certain

lands. The answer alleged that on or about December 26, 1908, plaintiff, in order to induce defendant Minnie L. Bricker to purchase the hotel property and livery barn mentioned in the complaint, falsely represented that his interest in said property, real or personal, was worth the sum of $5,000; that the property was profitable and productive and bringing in a large income, when in fact it was not paying running expenses; that he misrepresented the amount of personal property he was selling to defendant and the amount of indebtedness standing against it; that relying upon his representations defendant was induced to enter into a contract with him to her damage in the sum of $4,500. The reply was a general denial. The case was tried before Holt, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,600. From an order denying defendant Babler's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.

C. C. Joslyn and E. W. Richter, for appellant.

Will A. Blanchard, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action for damages for fraudulent representations concerning the title to certain real property, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant Babler appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.

The facts in brief are as follows: Plaintiff was in possession of certain real property in the city of Anoka, known as the "Blanchett Hotel," under an executory contract for the purchase of the same. Defendant Babler, a real estate dealer doing business in Minneapolis, held the fee title to the property, subject to plaintiff's contract of purchase. Plaintiff was in default in some of the payments required by the contract. Defendant Babler introduced to plaintiff the subject of a trade of the property for land in North Dakota, representing that he had a client who owned a half section in Dunn county, that state, subject to an indebtedness of $900, and thought that he could effect an exchange. Plaintiff requested that the client be brought in and they would talk the matter over.

Babler subsequently presented defendant E. J. Bricker, and after some negotiations an agreement for an exchange was effected. At this interview both Babler and Bricker represented that defendant Minnie L. Bricker, wife of defendant E. J. Bricker, owned the North Dakota land. Plaintiff's equity in the hotel property was valued at $4,500, and an exchange of the land, subject to the incumbrance of $900, for the hotel, was finally agreed upon. Plaintiff, his wife joining, executed a written assignment of his contract of purchase, the name of the assignee being left in blank, in which the name of defendant Babler was inserted, within two or three hours after its execution, by authority of defendant Bricker. A written contract for the sale of the North Dakota land was then prepared, in and by the terms of which Mrs. Bricker contracted and agreed to convey the land to plaintiff, upon payment of the purchase price as therein stated, namely, $4,500, "at or before the execution of this contract," and $1,600 in deferred payments. The payment of the $4,500 was represented by the assignment of plaintiff's contract for the hotel property. Mrs. Bricker was not present at the time the negotiations were in progress, or when the contract just mentioned was prepared, and it was signed in her name by her husband, as her attorney in fact; Babler and the husband representing that she had given him such authority. By the execution of these documents the transaction was closed, the papers delivered, and possession of the hotel surrendered to defendant Babler, who placed his brother in charge of the same. Another transaction at the same time relative to the hotel fixtures, and some other articles of personal property, had no particular connection with this exchange of properties, and we pass it without further mention.

The sole consideration for plaintiff's assignment of his rights in the hotel property was the agreement to convey to him the Dakota land, and he was induced to part with it upon the representations of defendants that Mrs. Bricker owned the same. As a matter of fact Mrs. Bricker had no title, right, or interest in the land at the time, nor, so far...