Poloms v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 24 January 1930
• Docket Number: No. 73.,73.
• Citation: 249 Mich. 306,228 N.W. 711
• Parties: POLOMS et al. v. PETERSON.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

249 Mich. 306

228 N.W. 711

POLOMS et al.

v.PETERSON.

No. 73.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 24, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Allegan County; Orien S. Cross, Judge.

Action by Max H. Poloms and another against Carl H. Peterson, to recover damages sustained by reason of defendant having induced plaintiffs, by false and fraudulent representations, to purchase certain property. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Wilkes & Stone, of Allegan, and Harry C. Howard, of Kalamazoo, for appellant.

Clare E. Hoffman and Leo W. Hoffman, both of Allegan, for appellees.

NORTH, J.

In August, 1927, the defendant entered into a contract to sell to plaintiffs 10 acres of land located on the shore of Round Lake in Allegan county. There was a store building on this property. The contract price was $5,000, on which there was a down payment of $2,000. No further payments were made. In September, 1928, plaintiffs brought this suit to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant having induced plaintiffs by false and fraudulent representations to purchase this property. Plaintiffs had verdict, and judgment for $2,500. Defendant reviews by writ of error.

It is first asserted by appellant that the court should have directed a verdict in his favor because there was no evidence to sustain plaintiffs' claim for damages, and further plaintiffs were estopped from recovering by reason of having retained possession of the property. We think the record contains testimony which clearly presented an issue of fact relative to the alleged misrepresentations and as to the plaintiffs having believed them and having relied thereon, and also relative to the damage they sustained. We will not attempt a detailed quotation from the record, but the following is from the testimony of the plaintiff Max Poloms: ‘He (defendant) said the place was worth $5500, * * * that there was a good business there and had all the trade in the neighborhood. He said he took in $40 a day during the summer months, $100 a day on holidays and $20 a day during the winter. Mr. Peterson told me the place would easily sell for $5500 to $6000. He told me the business had been established for years. * * * Mr. Peterson told me the lake front lots ought to easily sell at $250, $200 at the lowest price. * * * He said he was well posted and knew the values of real estate and I could depend on his word, and I did depend on his word. I did not depend upon the judgment of any one else when I purchased the property.’

Mrs. Poloms testified substantially as above, and also said: ‘We told Mr. Peterson we did not know the value of property and he told us he was going to deal honestly with us. * * * We finally decided that we would take the place, relying upon what Mr. Peterson had said.’

Numerous witnesses gave testimony tending to prove that the value of this property as given by the defendant was not in accordance with the fact, and that its value was much less than plaintiffs contracted to pay. Under some circumstances, statements of value are only expressions of opinion. Appellant contends that his statements of this character should be held as a matter of law to have been only expressions of opinion. But under the circumstances disclosed in this record his statements might well have been found by the jury to have been deliberate misrepresentations made with the intention of deceiving the plaintiffs and as having accomplished that result. The case was submitted to the jury on that theory. It falls within the authority of Steele v. Banninga, 225 Mich. 547, 196 N. W. 404;Pinch v. Hotaling, 142 Mich. 521, 106 N. W. 69;O'Neill v. Kunkle, 244 Mich. 653, 222 N. W. 110; and Gugel v. Neitzel, 248 Mich. 312, 226 N. W. 869, 870, wherein we held: ‘It is a settled and salutary general rule that a statement of value...