Pieh v. Flitton
| Decision Date | 21 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 25,672 |
| Citation | 211 N.W. 964,170 Minn. 29 |
| Parties | GEORGE PIEH v. LETTA R. FLITTON AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Defendants appealed from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, C. L. Smith, J., denying their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. Reversed.
When misrepresentation of federal law is not ground for avoiding contract.
1. A misrepresentation of the law of the United States, made by a person who does not occupy a fiduciary relation to the person to whom the misrepresentation is made, does not vitiate a contract and is no ground for the avoidance thereof.
When false representation of fact is defense to suit on note.
2. Under c. 318, 36 U.S. St. p. 583, a patent for public land withdrawn from unrestricted entry or classified as valuable for coal, is subject, when issued, to a reservation to the United States of coal and mineral in the land. A representation that a homestead patent to a particular tract of land can be obtained free from mineral reservation is in effect a representation that the land has not been withdrawn from general entry or classified as coal or mineral land. Such a representation is one of fact and not of law and, if it was false and was relied upon by the party to whom it was made, it is a defense to a suit on his note given for a relinquishment of a homestead entry of the land.
John A. Nordin, for appellants.
Johnson & Schoening, for respondent.
This action was brought on two promissory notes executed by the defendants.
As one of their defenses, defendants pleaded that plaintiff had a homestead claim near Wolf Point, Montana, which he offered to sell and relinquish to them; that he falsely and fraudulently represented that defendants could obtain a patent to the land free from reservations of minerals; and that in reliance upon these representations the defendants gave the notes in question and made a homestead entry of the land. It was alleged that such a patent could not be obtained and that the land was subject to a reservation to the United States of minerals therein, all of which was known to plaintiff when he made the representations.
The court directed a verdict in plaintiff's favor and defendants appealed from an order denying their motion for judgment or a new trial.
We find it necessary to consider only the defense mentioned above.
A misrepresentation of the law of the United States, made by a person who does not occupy a fiduciary relation to the person to whom it is made, does not vitiate a contract and is no ground for the avoidance thereof. In Colby v. Life Ind. & Inv. Co. 57 Minn. 510, 516, 59 N.W. 539, 542, this court said:
"We recognize that the general rule is that, as between parties bearing no fiduciary relation to each other, a mere misrepresentation of law by one party, or a mere mistake of law by the other party, is no ground for relief."
It has often been said that a misrepresentation as to the legal effect of an instrument is not a misrepresentation of a fact. Cummings v. Thompson, 18 Minn. 228, 231 (246); Perkins v. Trinka, 30 Minn. 241, 15 N.W. 115; Jaggar v. Winslow, 30 Minn. 263, 15 N.W 242; Valley v. Crookston...
To continue reading
Request your trial