Nickle v. Reeder

• Decision Date: 24 July 1917
• Docket Number: 7860.
• Citation: 166 P. 895,66 Okla. 10,1917 OK 380
• Parties: NICKLE v. REEDER.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

166 P. 895

66 Okla. 10, 1917 OK 380

NICKLE v. REEDER.

No. 7860.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 24, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

The effect of evidence, introduced to show that a written contract was induced and obtained by material false and fraudulent representations is not to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, but to show that the party entering into the contract was imposed upon, and that fraud was practiced in procuring the execution of said contract.

While ordinarily a statement upon which fraud may be predicated must be of existing fact, and not a mere expression of opinion, a representation that the landlord will continue to rent a building for restaurant purposes to a purchaser of such restaurant so long as such purchaser may pay the rent in advance, when, at the time of making the representation by the seller, he has been duly served with notice to quit said premises, and has been notified by the landlord that such landlord would no longer rent said premises for restaurant purposes, such representation being relied upon and acted upon by the purchaser, and being shown to be a material inducement for the purchase of said restaurant, amounts to actionable fraud.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1. Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.

Action by J. S. Reeder against Charles Nickle. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

T. E Robertson, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Giddings & Giddings and J. T. Dortch, all of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

RUMMONS C.

This is an action, originating in a justice of the peace court of Oklahoma county, to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentations alleged to have been made by the plaintiff in error to the defendant in error, relied upon by the defendant in error, and inducing him to purchase from the plaintiff in error a restaurant stock and fixtures in the city of Oklahoma City. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the court below. The defendant assigns but two errors as grounds for the reversal of the judgment of the trial court.

The first is that the court erred in admitting parol testimony as to the representations made by the defendant at the time plaintiff purchased the restaurant from the defendant, for the reason that the sale of the restaurant was evidenced by a written bill of sale, and that the evidence so admitted tended to contradict and vary the terms of such written instrument. The second assignment is that the court erred in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the evidence of plaintiff, and in overruling defendant's motion for an instructed verdict, because the evidence of plaintiff was insufficient to establish fraud upon the part of the defendant.

The plaintiff alleged and offered evidence to prove: That, at the time he was negotiating with the defendant for the purchase of such restaurant, the defendant stated to plaintiff that he, the defendant, was occupying the room in which said restaurant was situated under a lease from month to month but that the landlord who owned the building had agreed that in the event of a sale by the defendant, the purchaser could continue to occupy the building so long as he continued to pay the rent therefor in advance; while in truth and in fact at the time such representations were made by the defendant the landlord had already served notice upon the defendant to vacate said building at the expiration of the current month, and such landlord had informed defendant that he would not rent said building for restaurant purposes. That the plaintiff relied...