Mosher v. Post
| Decision Date | 05 March 1895 |
| Citation | 89 Wis. 602,62 N.W. 516 |
| Parties | MOSHER v. POST. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Fond du Lac county; N. S. Gilson, Judge.
Action by Newton F. Mosher against William H. Post. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action for damages for deceit in an exchange of a farm for a stock of merchandise. The plaintiff owned a farm. The defendant owned a stock of second-hand, miscellaneous, misfit merchandise. The plaintiff proposed a trade. Defendant asked, “How much is your farm worth?” Plain-said, “$7,000.” Plaintiff asked, “What is your stock worth?” Defendant said, “$7,000.” Plaintiff asked, “What do your daily sales amount to?” Defendant said, “$25 to $100 per day.” At the close of plaintiff's testimoney the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was denied. There was a special verdict. The jury found that plaintiff's farm was worth $6,000; that the stock of goods was worth $950; that the defendant's representation of the value of his stock was fraudulent; that the plaintiff relied upon and was deceived by it; that the defendant was ignorant of the value of the goods, and could not have ascertained it before making the trade; that the defendant's statement of the amount of his daily sales was false, and made to deceive; that it did deceive the plaintiff. There was no substantial evidence showing that the defendant's sales had been less than he represented them, except as that should be inferred from the fact that plaintiff's sales, after he came into possession, were less. The court gave judgment on the special verdict in favor of the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals.Phelps & Watson, for appellant.
Maurice McKenna and E. S. Bragg, for respondent.
NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).
The plaintiff's right to recover is rested upon the falsity of two representations which the defendant is found, by the jury, to have made respecting the goods which he exchanged with the plaintiff for his farm. These are: (1) That the goods were worth $7,000, and (2) that defendant's daily sales amounted to from $25 to $100. The jury found that both representations were made, and that both were false. The representation of value was sufficiently proved. Whether it was false is not so clear. But it is not material. It was a mere seller's statement, and furnishes no ground for an action for damages. The value of property is a matter of opinion and judgment, about which men differ. A certain liberty is given the seller in the appraisement of his property. If, having opportunity to examine the property, the purchaser sees fit to rely upon the seller's statements, it is his own folly. “It is settled that the law does not exact good faith from the seller in the vague commendation of his wares, which manifestly are open to differences of opinion, which do not imply undue assertions concerning matters of direct observation, and as to which it has been understood, the world over, that such statements are to be distrusted.” Deming v. Darling, 148 Mass. 504, 20 N. E. 107;Poland v. Brownell, 131 Mass. 138;Homer v. Perkins, 124 Mass. 431;Gordon v. Butler, 105 U. S. 553;Van...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MHC Mut. Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.
...over, that such statements are to be distrusted.Id. at 108 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Mosher v. Post, 89 Wis. 602, 62 N.W. 516, 516 (1895); Chrysler v. Canaday, 90 N.Y. 272, 279 (1882); Prosser, supra, at 721 (citing examples). Some contemporaneous scholars c......
-
Cont'l Nat. Bank of Chi. v. McGeoch
...and so; that the country accounts were not yet fully ascertained, but were assumed to be so and so; and other expressions. Mosher v. Post, 89 Wis. 602, 62 N. W. 516. 5. Such are all the claims of fraud, bearing upon the validity of the compromise and settlement, submitted to or determined b......
-
J. H. Clark Co. v. Rice
...opinion or as a statement of fact, the question must be determined by the jury or court. 14 A. & E. E. L. (2d Ed.) 34-41; Mosher v. Post, 89 Wis. 602, 605, 62 N. W. 516;Maltby v. Austin, 65 Wis. 527, 27 N. W. 162;Warner v. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N. W. 179;Forest Lawn Co. v. Hanley, 94 Wi......
-
Elliott Supply Company, a Corp. v. Green
...Burns v. Mahannah, 39 Kan. 87, 17 P. 319; Foley v. Cowgill, 5 Blackf. 18, 32 Am. Dec. 49; Uhler v. Semple, 20 N.J.Eq. 288; Mosher v. Post, 89 Wis. 602, 62 N.W. 516; Poland Brownell, 131 Mass. 138, 41 Am. Rep. 215. A catalogue or list or prices of goods made and promulgated is not admissible......