Phelps v. James
| Decision Date | 01 February 1890 |
| Citation | 79 Iowa 262,44 N.W. 543 |
| Parties | PHELPS ET AL. v. JAMES ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Polk county; MARCUS KAVANAUGH, Jr., Judge.
Action to recover for false and fraudulent representations made by defendants' agents as to the character, condition, and value of a tract of land, whereby plaintiff was induced to enter into a contract for the exchange of other real property for it. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Bosquet & Earle, for appellants.
Reed & Reed and McGary & Brown, for appellees.
1. The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a contract for the exchange of real estate; the property exchanged by plaintiff being a farm in Lee county, and that exchanged by defendants an hotel in Indianola. The contract was made for both parties by agents. The false and fraudulent representations which it is alleged induced plaintiffs to make the contract related to the quality of the land, its improvements, rental value, etc. In one count of the petition recovery is sought upon a written guaranty as to the location, condition, quality, improvements, etc., of the land. The parties entered into a contract specifying the terms of the trade, the description of each piece of property, the incumbrances thereon, obligations to furnish abstracts of title, and to make warranty deeds for the property, and other terms not necessary to be here stated. The contract contains a condition in these words: “The above is an exchange of said property, without regard to valuation of said property, or either of them.”
2. The first instruction directs the jury that if they find defendants, by themselves or agents, made false representations to the effect complained of, knowing them to be false, upon which plaintiffs relied, and were thereby induced to enter into the contract, their verdict should be for plaintiffs. It is insisted that the instruction is erroneous for the reason that it refers to representations generally, and not those testified to by plaintiffs. The court rightly made the language of the instruction general, so that it would be applicable to any representations which are covered by the allegations of the petition.
3. It is insisted that this instruction is, and others are, erroneous, in that they hold defendants liable for false representations which induced plaintiffs to execute the contract for the exchange of the lands. Counsel for defendants, as we understand them, insist that under the condition of the contract above quoted the trade was made without regard to the value of the lands, their condition, and their improvements, etc., and both parties are precluded thereby from complaining if the lands prove not to be as represented by the parties in their negotiations and contract. But if it be admitted that the condition of the contract is such that the parties are bound to take the lands as they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fruit Dispatch Co. v. C. C. Taft Co.
...on account of the condition of the bananas, would not protect it from the consequences, if the sale was procured by fraud. Phelps v. James, 79 Iowa, 262, 44 N. W. 543;Bridger v. Goldsmith, 143 N. Y. 424, 38 N. E. 458. But they are both material and important upon the consideration of the cl......
- Phelps v. James