Ochsenkehl v. Jeffers
| Decision Date | 19 October 1875 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jacob Ochsenkehl v. Michael Jeffers |
Heard October 12, 1875
Error to Saginaw Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.
Albert Trask, for plaintiff in error.
Wisner & Draper, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error brought an action of trespass on the case against defendant in error. The declaration sets forth that defendant Jeffers, September 18, 1871, agreed to sell to the plaintiff the north half of the northeast quarter of a certain section of land; that this land was very valuable and desirable on account of the fertility of the soil and for other reasons stated in the declaration; that defendant was at the same time the owner of the east half of the same quarter section which was of but very little value, being swampy; that after entering into this agreement, defendant fraudulently prepared, executed and delivered to the plaintiff a deed of the east half, intending therebye to cheat and defraud the plaintiff, and that he did thereby cheat and defraud him. The declaration farther alleges that the plaintiff is by birth and education a German; that at the time he purchased the land he was ignorant of the manner of describing lands according to the government survey, and that in his trade with Jeffers he relied upon the description of the lands with reference to roads and ditches as given him by Jeffers more than on the sectional subdivisions thereof; that he was not able to read the deed he then received, but relying upon the truth and honesty of defendant, he immediately entered upon the westerly four acres of the said north half and made many and valuable improvements thereon, and continued to labor on and improve said land from that time until May 1, 1874, when he for the first time learned that he was not the owner of such land that in April, 1874, defendant had conveyed this land to one Jacob Seligman, who had taken possession of such land and improvements; and plaintiff claims damages on account of such deceit.
Upon the trial, plaintiff was called and sworn as a witness, and after answering certain preliminary questions and testifying that he had an interview with defendant about this land, he was asked to state the conversation between Jeffers and himself on that occasion. This was objected to by defendant's counsel, that plaintiff having averred in his declaration that defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial