Pennington v. Roberge
| Decision Date | 03 July 1913 |
| Docket Number | 18,014 - (111) |
| Citation | 142 N.W. 710,122 Minn. 295 |
| Parties | JAMES B. PENNINGTON v. L. D. ROBERGE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Wright county to rescind a land contract and to recover $2,000 paid upon the purchase price together with $1,000 damages. The substance of the defense is stated in the opinion. The case was tried before Waite, J who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $2,000. From an order denying defendant's motion for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Rescission of contract -- false representations -- findings supported by evidence.
1. In an action for rescission held that the evidence supports the findings that plaintiff entired the contract to purchase a farm relying on defendant's representations as to its conditions in certain respects; that these representations were false, and that plaintiff offered to rescind within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud.
Motive immaterial.
2. In such action the motive of the party making the representations is immaterial and no finding need be made thereon.
Right to rescind.
3. Even if there be no evidence that the misrepresentations made affected the value of the subject matter of the contract in any certain sum, still, if it can be fairly said that they relate to a quality or condition thereof, which is of well-known worth and importance, the misrepresentations may nevertheless give the right of rescission.
Variance.
4. The objection to the complaint and an alleged variance between it and the evidence is not well taken.
Savage & Purdy, for appellant.
F. H. Salmon and C. A. Pidgeon, for respondent.
Action by the purchaser of a farm to rescind the contract of purchase and to recover the money paid thereunder on the ground of defendant's misrepresentation. The relief sought was granted, and the defendant appeals from the order denying a new trial.
The plaintiff met the defendant at Hastings, Minnesota, on May 27, 1910. Plaintiff, having sold his farm in the southwestern part of the state, was then looking for a farm to buy. The defendant had just given Traub Brothers, a real estate firm in Minneapolis, the exclusive sale of his farm of 163 acres near Montrose, in Wright county. Plaintiff claims that the defendant then stated that his farm at Montrose was free from stones and foul weeds, and besides flower and ornamental shrubs and trees had a large orchard consisting of 1,600 apple trees, 1,300 of which were bearing. He also directed plaintiff to Traub Brothers' office. Plaintiff went there at once, and a member of that firm took plaintiff on the same day to Montrose, where they met the defendant at the farm. Some little time was spent that evening in viewing the premises and an hour or two next morning before breakfast. Soon thereafter all the parties left, as they were anxious to make the 9 o'clock train. The plaintiff claims that defendant, during that time, again made the same representations as to apple trees, freedom from stones and foul weeds such as Canada thistle, quack grass and wild oats; also that Mr. Traub gave him a card and typewritten statement describing the farm, buildings, soil and so on, and among other things stating that there were no stones and that there were 1,600 apple trees, 1,300 thereof bearing. The plaintiff claims that he believed these representations and in reliance thereon bought the farm and on May 28, 1910, executed the contract, and paid then $1,000 thereon and $1,000 July 1, 1910. He contends that the representations were false; that the fields contained a great number of stones; that Canada thistle, quack grass and wild oats flourished to a damaging extent, and that there were only 1,255 apple trees of which only 1,130 were bearing. Some other misrepresentations were claimed; but the evidence does not warrant any finding of fraud based thereon.
The plaintiff did not again visit the farm until in the early part of September, when he took his wife to see it, and remained a few hours, and again on the nineteenth of September, when the defendant had an auction which plaintiff attended. He moved onto the farm on the twentieth of October and began plowing and kept on until about the middle of November. In the middle of December, he sought out the defendant and offered to surrender the place and demanded the return of the money paid on the ground of misrepresentations. The defendant, in his answer herein, denied making any misrepresentations, alleged that plaintiff fully investigated the farm before he bought and was guilty of laches in rescinding. Another defense, namely, injury to the orchard, grape vines and ornamental shrubs while in plaintiff's possession, is not urged here.
The chief attack is directed against these findings:
As to finding 4, the court could scarcely avoid making it. Plaintiff was fortified by the written evidence of defendant's agent as to the number of apple trees, and the defendant admitted that the orchard contained no more than 1,255.
The court was not required to find whether the false representation was made purposely to defraud or innocently. Hence no prejudice results to defendant from the failure to find upon the so-called alternative propositions specified in the fifth finding. The right of rescission "is not based upon actual fraud, but on a material mistake of facts caused by the fault of the other party" Martin v. Hill 41 Minn. 337, 43 N.W. 337. The false representation having been made, it becomes immaterial, from a legal view, whether the defendant made it innocently or corruptly, if the plaintiff, relying thereon, was in fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial