Mullen v. Kinsey

• Decision Date: 03 February 1897
• Docket Number: 7018
• Citation: Mullen v. Kinsey, 50 Neb. 466, 70 N.W. 18 (Neb. 1897)
• Parties: PATRICK MULLEN v. LOUISA KINSEY
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

70 N.W. 18

50 Neb. 466

PATRICK MULLEN v. LOUISA KINSEY

No. 7018

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 3, 1897

ERROR from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before HOPEWELL, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Charles B. Keller, for plaintiff in error.

Warren Switzler, contra.

OPINION

POST C. J.

This was an action below in the district court for Douglas county by the defendant in error, Louisa Kinsey, against the plaintiff in error, Patrick Mullen, to recover damage on account of certain alleged false and fraudulent representations of the latter as an inducement to the purchase by the former of a certain quarter section of land in Holt county. The fraud charged consists in the false statement relied upon by the plaintiff below, that there were situated upon the Holt county land a frame dwelling house 20 by 40 feet, with a stone foundation, of the value of $ 600 and a barn 20 by 30 feet, of the value of $ 200; a frame granary 10 by 20 feet, of the value of $ 200, together with good fences, outhouses, etc.; also that 65 acres of said land was under cultivation, in addition to which there was, as represented, situated thereon an orchard of 5 acres. The material allegations of the petition were all put in issue by the answer and a trial had resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff below in the sum of $ 250, upon which judgment was subsequently entered and which it is sought to reverse by means of this proceeding.

The question to which our attention is especially directed by counsel for the plaintiff in error is that of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. In this connection it is contended that the defendant in error did not rely upon the alleged representations respecting the land in question but upon an independent investigation made under her direction; and in support of that proposition we are referred to the fact that one Green, defendant in error's agent pending the negotiation which resulted in the contract, at the instance of the latter, wrote to Holt county for information respecting said land. But the inquiry made appears to have been confined to the character of the land only, and a reason was given, satisfactory to the jury, for the reliance by the defendant in error upon the representations of the adverse party touching the value of the land and the improvements thereon. It is also argued that the representations, as proved, related to the value of the...