Olson v. Smith
| Decision Date | 12 January 1912 |
| Parties | OLSON et al. v. SMITH. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Beltrami County; C. W. Stanton, Judge.
Action by John W. Olson and another, copartners as Olson & Berkey, against A. E. Smith. From an order overruling a demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Representations as to intention to perform acts in the future may constitute actionable fraud, when made with the present intention not to perform such acts. Albitz v. Minneapolis & Pacific Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 476, 42 N. W. 394, and McElrath v. Electric Investment Co., 114 Minn. 358, 131 N. W. 380, followed.
Complaint in action for damages for fraudulent representations as to intention to furnish logs for the plaintiff's sawmill, whereby they were induced to move such mill, held sufficient on general demurrer. G. W. Campbell (Fed B. Dodge, of counsel), for appellant.
Spooner, Laybourn & Lucas, for respondents.
Appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to the plaintiffs' complaint.
The action is one for the recovery of damages for the defendant's failure to perform certain promises alleged to have been falsely and fraudulently made by the defendant as an inducement for the plaintiffs to remove and relocate their sawmill. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were owners of a sawmill in Langor, Beltraim county, and that the defendant owned property in Puposky, in said county, and was interested in building up the village; that in December, 1907, the defendant represented to the plaintiffs that it was his intention to and that he would furnish the plaintiffs 1,000,000 feet of sawlogs each year for three years and pay the plaintiffs $3.50 per 1,000 feet for sawing them into lumber, and 50 cents per 1,000 feet for piling, and that to induce the plaintiffs to remove their mill the defendant stated that it was his intention to and that he would prepare and execute and have ready to be executed by the plaintiffs a written contract with the plaintiffs embodying the terms of the contract as already agreed upon; that, relying upon the said representations, the plaintiffs thereafter removed their sawmill to Puposky, rebuilt it on land designated by the defendant, and in June, 1908, completed and equipped the same for sawing logs, with a capacity of 30,000 feet per day; that before and after the establishment of the mill at Puposky the plaintiffs requested the defendant to prepare and execute a written contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Corporation v. General Motors Corporation
...York follow the rule that promises made without an intent to perform can constitute the basis of an action in deceit. Olson v. Smith, 1912, 116 Minn. 430, 134 N.W. 117; Deyo v. Hudson, 1919, 225 N.Y. 602, 122 N.E. 635; see Annotation, Promises and Statements as to Future Events as Fraud, 19......
-
Smith v. Vosika, 24506.
...v. Minneapolis & Pac. Ry. Co., 40 Minn. 476, 42 N. W. 394; McElrath v. Electric Inv. Co., 114 Minn. 358, 131 N. W. 380; Olson v. Smith, 116 Minn. 430, 134 N. W. 117; Schaeffer v. Rush, 118 Minn. 174, 136 N. W. 754. In Hodsden v. Hodsden, 69 Minn. 486, 72 N. W. 562, a demurrer to the complai......
-
McIntyre v. Dawes
...of performing, will support an action of deceit. Sallies v. Johnson, 85 Conn. 77, 81 A. 974, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 386; Olson v. Smith, 116 Minn. 430, 134 N.W. 117; Rogers v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 149 F. 78 C. C. A. 615. In Kelly v. Ellis, 39 Mont. 597, 104 P. 873, this court said: "If......
-
Holmes v. Wilkes
...good, is guilty of actionable fraud. McElrath v. Electric Investments Co., 114 Minn. 358, 131 N. W. 380, and cases cited; Olson v. Smith, 116 Minn. 430, 134 N. W. 117. [2] 2. A question of some difficulty is whether the evidence in the case at bar presents a state of facts justifying the ap......