Neibuhr v. Gage
| Decision Date | 03 August 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,626,14,627 - (13,14) |
| Citation | 108 N.W. 884,99 Minn. 149 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. NEIBUHR v. W. F. GAGE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
October 12, 1906, On Rehearing
Separate appeals by plaintiff and defendant resulted from duress it was voidable, from an order of the and the sole remedy of the district court for Freeborn county, Kingsley, injured party was either to rescind J., denying a motion for and to restore the benefits, and then judgment in favor of defendant notwithstanding bring his action for what he had the verdict and granting parted with, or bring his action a motion for a new trial, after a trial in equity for a rescission and for and verdict in favor of plaintiff such relief as he was entitled to for $8,478. Order granting new trial upon rescission. reversed, and judgment ordered
The plaintiff's theory is that his for plaintiff on the verdict. property was taken from him by
Duress -- Deceit.
Duress and deceit are simply different methods by which fraud is consummated. The same remedies are available to the injured party.
Duress -- Relief.
One who by duress is compelled to sign a contract whereby he parts with his property may proceed in equity for a rescission by the court, rescind by his own act, and sue at law, or allow the contract to stand and sue at law for damages.
Action for Damages.
The equitable doctrine of laches has no application when the action is brought at law for damages.
Action for Damages.
The action at law for damages may be brought at any time within the period fixed by the statute of limitations.
Verdict -- Evidence.
In an action at law for damages occasioned by acquiescence, laches and affirmative by duress, the evidence acts of the plaintiff it has held to sustain the verdict been ratified; (b) that if the contract
Morgan & Meighen and Lovely & Dunn, that kind of fraud known as "duress," for plaintiff. that he knew nothing of any
L. L. Brown, H. C. Carlson and John contract with Gage, Hayden & Co.; G. Skinner, for defendant. that if he signed such a contract
This action was brought to recover he ignored the so-called contract, damages which the plaintiff claimed no rights under it, does claims he suffered by reason of being not ask to have it rescinded, seeks required while under duress to no equitable relief, but brings an transfer to the defendant certain shares action of law to recover damages of stock in a corporation. In resulting from the tortious act the court below he recovered a verdict of the defendant, Gage. Upon this for $8,478. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but granted a new trial. Both parties appealed. It was not stated in the order that the new trial was granted because the evidence does not sustain the verdict. From the memorandum, however, it appears that the court was of the opinion that it erred at the trial in holding that the contract, if obtained by duress, was void, instead of voidable. Apparently the new trial was granted for this reason alone. We will first consider the question raised by the defendant's appeal, and throughout the opinion it will be more convenient to refer to the parties as plaintiff and defendant than as appellant and respondent.
1. The defendant contends (1) that the evidence does not justify the finding of the jury that the transfer of the stock in question was obtained by duress. But, assuming that it does so show, then that (a) the contract whereby the stock was transferred was voidable only and capable of ratification and that by acquiescence, laches, and affirmative acts of the plaintiff it has been ratified; (b) that if the contract resulted from duress it was voidable, and the sole remedy of the injured party was either to rescind and to restore the benefits, and then bring his action for what he had parted with, or bring his action in equity for a rescission and for such relief as he was entitled to upon rescission.
The plaintiff's theory is that his property was taken from him by that kind of fraud known as "duress," that he knew nothing of any contract with Gage, Hayden & Co.; that if he signed such a contract his signature was obtained without his consent and as a part of the defendant's unlawful act; that he ignored the so-called contract, claimed no rights under it, does not ask to have it rescinded, seeks no equitable relief, but brings an action of law to recover damages resulting from the tortious act of the defendant, Gage. Upon this theory he stands in the same position as one who by force has been deprived of property, and instead of seeking to recover the specific property allows the wrongdoer to retain it, and brings his action for damages.
The record is somewhat voluminous and the arguments have taken a very wide range. We are convinced, however, that the case lies within very restricted limits. The arguments of counsel rest upon radically different views of the nature of the action. Plaintiff contends that it is at law to recover damages and the defendant that it is, regardless of form, governed by the equitable doctrine of ratification, laches, and rescission.
The nature of the action must be determined from an examination of the proceedings, the issues and the relief demanded or claimed to arise out of the facts. It will be noted that the action is brought against Gage individually, and that Gage, Hayden & Co. is not a party. It will be necessary to set forth the substance of the pleadings at some length.
The complaint alleges that on February 23, 1898, the plaintiff was the owner and holder of ninety one shares of the stock of Gage, Hayden & Co., a corporation, of the aggregate face value of $9,100, and then of the actual value of $12,000; that on that date the defendant Gage wrongfully and unlawfully held and restrained the plaintiff against his will and in restraint of his liberty, and then and there, knowing the same to be untrue, wrongfully and unlawfully and falsely charged the plaintiff with having unlawfully and feloniously appropriated certain moneys, funds, and properties of said Gage, Hayden & Co., and then and there falsely stated to the plaintiff that the defendant had in his possession sufficient evidence to prove such charge and accusation, and sufficient to insure the conviction of said plaintiff of a felony, to wit, the crime of grand larceny, and while plaintiff was so held in fear of said accusation and false charge, and in restraint of his liberty, defendant threatened to have plaintiff arrested and imprisoned for said crime of grand larceny unless said plaintiff would then and there pay or secure to said defendant the full sum of $9,100; that the plaintiff was by the said defendant there held in fear and peril of his liberty, and threatened with immediate imprisonment, and denied the right and opportunity to consult friends or counsel, or to employ an attorney, until he was forced and compelled to, and did, comply with the unlawful and extortionate demands, claims, and exactions of the defendant; that while the plaintiff was so held in restraint of his liberty, and threatened with immediate arrest and imprisonment upon said false and groundless charge and accusation, and while plaintiff was put in mortal fear of immediate arrest and imprisonment, and thereby deprived of the free and independent use of his faculties, and while he was led to believe that the defendant was able to, and would, produce false testimony against him, in order to establish and justify such false accusation and charge, and further believing and being led by the defendant to believe that the defendant then and there had the means at his command to wrongfully and unlawfully proceed against plaintiff and produce false testimony against him, and that the defendant would immediately cause the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff for said alleged felony; and the plaintiff being therefor put in great fear and peril of his liberty, and being alone and helpless, and being deprived of his liberty by said defendant, the plaintiff was then and there unlawfully forced and compelled to, and did, comply with the said unjust and unlawful demands of the defendant, and then and there transferred and conveyed to the defendant by reason of the facts herein set forth, and not otherwise, and without any consideration, the said ninety one shares of the capital stock of said corporation.
It is further alleged that the statement and claim of the defendant were false and untrue, and were made by the defendant for the purpose of unlawfully depriving the plaintiff of his property; that the plaintiff had not at any time unlawfully appropriated of taken any property of the defendant or of the corporation; that the plaintiff was not indebted to the defendant or corporation in any sum whatever; that by reason of said demand and charges plaintiff was deprived of his usual strength of will, and was rendered incapable of acting intelligently or of protecting himself; that by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant the plaintiff was deprived of his property; that no part thereof has ever been restored to him; that defendant has never paid any consideration therefor; and that by reason of the premises plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of $13,650, for which amount he demands judgment.
The amended answer admits the transfer of the stock and alleges that, while plaintiff was apparent owner thereof, Gage Hayden & Co. was the actual owner of all except eighteen shares, for the reason that it had been purchased with money embezzled from the corporation. It is admitted that on February 23, 1898, Gage, Hayden & Co. demanded of the plaintiff that said stock be delivered to it, and alleged that on said date the...
To continue reading
Request your trial