Olson v. Orton

• Decision Date: 17 May 1881
• Citation: 28 Minn. 36,8 N.W. 878
• Parties: OLSON v ORTON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

28 Minn. 36

8 N.W. 878

OLSONvORTON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed May 17, 1881.

Appeal from order of district court, counties of Stevens, Big Stone, and Traverse.

Miller & Jones and Miller & Knapp, for appellant.

C. L. Brown and W. H. Harris, for respondent.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Action for deceit. Defendant was in possession for the purpose of pre-empting of certain lands of the United States subject to pre-emption, had filed in the local land-office his statement declaring his intention to pre-empt the lands, and had made improvements thereon. In November, 1876, for a valuable consideration, he sold to plaintiff all his right, title, and interest in the land, and abandoned the same in his favor, so that he might take possession. The purpose manifestly was that defendant should surrender his possession and improvements to plaintiff, so that the latter might be in position to pre-empt the land for himself. The deceit, which is the ground of the action, consisted in false representations made by defendant, knowing them to be false, to plaintiff, who did not know the fact, to the effect there were 35 acres of good timber growing on the land, upon which representations plaintiff relied, and by which he was induced to purchase. Plaintiff had a verdict.

None of the points made here by defendant are well taken. Only two of them need be mentioned. One of them, as we understand it, is that plaintiff had no right to rely on the representations; that the sources of information as to the fact were accessible to him; that he could have inspected the records of surveys and had the lands surveyed, and thus ascertained its boundaries, and whether they included the timber land. The case, as to this point, comes within the decision in Porter v. Fletcher, 25 Minn. 43, in which it was held that a party offering city lots for sale, and making representations to the purchaser as to the size and location, could not impute negligence or indiscretion to the purchaser, if, relying on such representations, he did not deem it necessary to examine the plat in the office of the register of deeds. That decision disposes of the point in question. The other point is that the transaction was in violation of section 12 of the act of congress of September 4, 1841, relating to pre-emption. That section declares that all assignments and transfers of the right hereby secured, prior to the issuing of the patent, shall be null and void.

The right secured by occupancy,...