Nash Mississippi Valley Motor Co. v. Childress

Decision Date20 January 1930
Docket Number28107
Citation156 Miss. 157,125 So. 708
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesNASH MISSISSIPPI VALLEY MOTOR CO. v. CHILDRESS

Division B

1 EVIDENCE. Parol evidence is admissible to show that written contract was procured by fraudulent representations, despite provision that contract contains all stipulations of parties.

Parol evidence is admissible to show that making of written contract was procured by fraudulent representations, in that evidence of such kind does not vary written contract but destroys and avoids it, and a provision in written contract that it contains all stipulations entered into by parties does not add anything to its strength.

2 FRAUDS. Purchaser may rely on representations of seller as to facts within latter's Knowledge, regardless of ability to ascertain falsity of representations.

Purchaser has a right to rely on representations of a seller as to facts within latter's knowledge, and seller cannot escape responsibility by showing that purchaser upon inquiry might have ascertained that such representations were not true.

3 FRAUD. Contributory negligence is no defense in action for fraud. Contributory negligence does not constitute a defense to an action based on fraud.

4. FRAUD. Seller's representations with reference to mileage of automobile constituted representations of material fact.

Representations by seller of automobile with reference to mileage of car constituted representations of a material fact on which buyer had a right to rely.

5. EVIDENCE. It is common knowledge that machinery will depreciate in value from wear and tear.

It is a matter of common knowledge that machinery of all kinds will depreciate in value from wear and tear, and especially is that true of an automobile whose secondhand value is largely dependent upon the number of miles it has gone.

6. FRAUD. Admission of evidence that seller was in habit of setting back speedometers on secondhand cars held not erroneous, in action for fraud in sale of secondhand automobile.

In action to recover damages against seller of automobile by reason of fraudulent representations relative to mileage of car, admission of evidence to effect that seller was in the habit of setting back speedometers on its secondhand cars was not erroneous, in that it constituted evidence of other similar frauds perpetrated by same person at or about the same time.

7. FRAUD. Other similar frauds may be shown in order to show intent with which representations complained of were made.

Other similar frauds may be shown in order to show intent with which representations complained of as fraudulent were made, especially where acts are all part of one general scheme or plan to defraud.

8. SALES. Buyer was not. because of attempted rescission on one ground, thereafter precluded from rescinding on another ground discovered after first attempted rescission.

Purchaser of secondhand automobile was not, by reason of attempt to rescind contract on one ground, thereafter precluded from rescinding contract on another ground which he discovered after first attempted rescission on ground which was not good in law.

HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Hinds county, First district HON. W. H. POTTER, Judge.

Action by E. G. Childress against the Nash Mississippi Valley Motor Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

J. H. Sumrall, of Jackson, for appellant.

When one or more witnesses affirm the existence of fraud, and an equal number deny its existence, and there is nothing to show that one is more credible than the other, the fraud is not established.

Allison v. Ward, 63 Mich. 128, 29 N.W. 528.

Although defendant, in a trade of automobiles, misrepresented the age of his car, plaintiff cannot recover without proof that he relied on the representation, and was induced thereby to enter into the contract.

John N. Benedict Company v. McKeage, 195 N.Y.S. 228.

It is necessary for a party to whom a misrepresentation is made to be deceived thereby before he can recover on account thereof.

Colpton v. Cozart, 21 Miss. 363; Selmer, etc., R. Co. v. Anderson, 51 Miss. 829.

The making of a misrepresentation relied upon as the basis of fraud must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 202, page 69, 27 C. J.; Denoyer v. First National Acc. Co., 130 N.W. 475; Willoughby v. Pope, 101 Miss. 808; White v. Trotter, 22 Miss. 30; Petrie v. Wright, 14 Miss. 647; White v. Trotter, 13 S. & M. 30, 53 Am. Dec. 112; Williamson v. Williamson, 3 S. & M. 715, 41 Am. Dec. 636; Tutuer v. Chase, 66 Miss. 476.

The concealment of a matter which a person of ordinary sense would discover is not fraud.

26 C. J., sec. 68, page 1142.

It was error to admit testimony that seller was in the habit of setting back speedometers on secondhand cars.

Cecil F. Travis and Green, Green & Potter, all of Jackson, for appellee.

Parol evidence is admissible to show fraud in the making of a contract even though the contract be evidenced by a written instrument.

Ferguson v. Koch, 268 P. 342, 58 A.L.R. 1176; Hirschburg Optical Company v. S. A. Jackson & Co., 63 Miss. 21; Henry et al. v. W. T. Rawleigh Company, 120 So. 188.

Where representations are made as of fact, especially of matters which may be assumed to be within the knowledge of the party making them, the party to whom they are made can rely upon them without instituting an independent investigation.

Ferguson v. Koch (Cal.), 268 P. 342; Gannon et al. v. Hausaman, 140 P. 407, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 519; King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 60 So. 143; Tillis v. Smith Sons Lumber Co., 65 So. 1015, 1017; Fosburg v. Couture, 217 P. 1001.

Other similar frauds may be shown to show the intent with which the representation complained of was made.

Nelms v. Steiner, 22 So. 435; 12 R. C. L., p. 435, sec. 182; 22 Corpus Juris, p. 435, sec. 182; 2 Jones' Commentaries on Evidence (2 Ed.), page 1151 sections 618, 619; Wilson v. Carpenter, 91 Va. 183, 50 A. S. R. 824; Castle v. Bullard, 64 U.S. 172, 16 L.Ed. 424; Butler v. Watkins, 13 Wall (U.S.) 456, 20 L.Ed. 629.

The fact that appellee at the time of his return of the automobile to appellants, did not know that the representation as to the mileage which the car had been driven was false, does not destroy appellee's right, upon discovery of the said fraud, to sue for damages therefor.

Odeneal et al. v. Henry, 70 Miss. 172.

Argued orally by J. H. Sumrall, for appellant, and by Cecil F. Travis, for appellee.

OPINION

Anderson, J.

This action was brought by appellee against appellant in the circuit court of Hinds county to recover the sum of four hundred fifty-eight dollars and seventy-five cents, damages alleged to have been suffered by appellee because of a false and fraudulent representation made by appellant to appellee in reference to a matter which was a material part of the consideration in the purchase, by appellee, of a secondhand automobile from the appellant. There was a verdict and judgment for the appellee in the sum of three hundred fifty dollars. From that judgment, the appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The following is deemed a sufficient statement of the facts of this case to develop the questions to be decided: The appellee bought, from the appellant, a secondhand Nash coupe, for which he agreed to pay the appellant the sum of one thousand dollars, of which four hundred dollars was paid at the time of the purchase by appellee trading in, as part payment for the Nash coupe, a Dodge roadster. The balance of six hundred dollars was to be paid in twelve monthly installments. One of these monthly installments was paid by the appellee. After using the Nash coupe awhile, the appellee returned it to the appellant, leaving it at the latter's place of business. In so doing, it was the appellee's purpose to rescind the contract for certain reasons not relied on by him in the trial of the case.

The ground of the appellee's case was that the appellant perpetrated a fraud upon him in falsely representing that the Nash coupe had been run, approximately, only eight thousand miles, when, in fact, it had been run many thousand more miles than that, which representation the appellee relied upon. Appellee testified that in the negotiations leading up to the purchase of the Nash coupe from appellant, the latter represented that the car had been owned by J. M. Stevens, of Jackson, Miss., and had been driven, approximately, eight thousand miles. Mrs. McNeal, another witness for appellee, testified to the same effect. The speedometer on the car showed that it had been run slightly above eight thousand miles. Parquette, a witness for the appellee, skilled in the regulation of speedometers, testified that it was not unusual for the appellant to set the speedometers back on its secondhand cars; that he had been employed by the appellant, on several occasions, to do so, and had set back speedometers for the appellant from a larger mileage to something like eight thousand miles.

The appellant denied making the representations as to the mileage of the car, but it appears...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 cases
  • fornea v. Goodyear Yellow Pine Co.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1938
    ... ... et al No. 33004 Supreme Court of Mississippi February 21, 1938 ... Division B ... Power Co. v. Bennett, 161 So. 302; Miss ... Valley Mtr. Co. v. Childress, 156 Miss. 157, 15 So. 708 ... v. Jackson ... & Co., 63 Miss. 21; Nash Valley Motor Co. v ... Childress, 125 So. 789; Henry v ... ...
  • Citizens Nat. Bank of Meridian v. Golden
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1936
    ... ... GOLDEN No. 31943 Supreme Court of Mississippi March 23, 1936 ... Division B ... v. Reeder, 173 S.W. 939; ... Ogden Valley v. Lewis, 41 Utah 183, 125 P. 687; ... Bernheiln Bros ... v. Citizens Bank of ... Morehead, 116 So. 605; Nash Miss. Valley Mtr. Co. v ... Childress, 125 So. 708, 156 ... v. Lewis, 25 So. 274; Nash Miss ... Valley Motor Co v. Childress, 156 Miss. 157, 125 So ... The ... ...
  • Mississippi Power Co. v. Bennett
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1935
    ... ... v ... Cohn & Bros., 30 So. 290; Lizana v. Edwards Motor ... Co., 41 So. 295; 6 Encyc. of Evidence, page 59; ... Foster v ... 290; ... Lizana v. Edwards Motor Co., 141 So. 295; Nash, ... etc., Motor Co. v. Childress, 125 So. 708; Estelle ... v. Myers, ... [173 Miss. 134] In the case ... of Nash Mississippi Valley Motor Co. v. Childress, ... 156 Miss. 157, 125 So. 708, 709, wherein the ... ...
  • Bullard v. Citizens' Nat, Bank
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1935
    ... ... No. 31626 Supreme Court of Mississippi March 25, 1935 ... (Division ... 1 ... v. Eastman Gardner & ... Co., 95 Miss. 651; Nash Mississippi Valley Motor Co. v ... Childress, 125 So ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT