Perkins v. Trinka
| Citation | 15 N.W. 115,30 Minn. 241 |
| Parties | Charles C. Perkins v. Joseph Trinka |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1883 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Rice county, Buckham, J., presiding, refusing a new trial. The case is stated in the opinion.
Order reversed, and new trial granted.
R. A Mott and Perkins & Whipple, for appellant.
H. S Gipson, for respondent.
We do not think that the defendant produced any evidence reasonably tending to support the allegations of his answer that the note in suit was obtained without consideration, by the fraud and false representations of the plaintiff. Plaintiff had held a tax deed for a number of years upon the farm occupied by defendant. After several ineffectual negotiations between the parties for a settlement, plaintiff finally brought suit against defendant for possession of the land, claiming to be owner. Thereupon defendant went and compromised or settled the matter with plaintiff, by executing to him the promissory note in suit, in consideration for which plaintiff executed to him a quitclaim deed of the premises, which was placed in escrow in the hands of a third person, to be delivered upon the execution, by defendant and wife to plaintiff, of a mortgage upon the land to secure the note, in which event the suit was to be discontinued.
The only tangible representations which can be urged as untrue and as constituting the fraud complained of, were the statements made by plaintiff, during and prior to the negotiations for settlement, to the effect that he had valid title to the land and could recover possession unless defendant settled with him, whereas in fact his tax deed was void and vested no title in him, as has since been judicially ascertained in the case of O'Mulcahy v. Florer, 27 Minn. 449, 8 N.W. 166, in which a deed of the same form was held void on its face. It is entirely clear that plaintiff made this claim of title solely under his tax deed, and that his statements were made wholly with reference to it, and that defendant perfectly understood this. Under the circumstances of the case, plaintiff's statements were rather expressions of opinion as to the legal effect of his tax deed than positive statements of fact. The evidence also shows that defendant had been aware of the existence of this deed for years, and had more than once refused to accept plaintiff's offers of settlement, because he considered it void. There were no relations of confidence between the parties. Defendant had precisely the same means of ascertaining whether the tax title was valid which plaintiff possessed. On cross-examination, he admits that he could not say that he exactly believed that plaintiff could get possession of the land unless he signed this note. There is no evidence that plaintiff then knew or believed that his tax deed was void. It is also evident that the settlement was made, not upon the basis that plaintiff had unquestionable title, but that his claim was doubtful, because the...
To continue reading
Request your trial