Potter v. Necedah Lumber Co.
| Citation | 81 N.W. 118,105 Wis. 25 |
| Parties | POTTER v. NECEDAH LUMBER CO. ET AL. |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1899 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
The appellant's counsel insist, as a ground for a rehearing, that the court, in deciding the case, adopted their theory as to the proper rule of damages but failed to give effect to it. True, the court held, and now affirms, that where actionable fraud is committed by false representations to effect the sale of property, whether the wronged party be the vendee or vendor, recoverable loss is limited to the difference between the real value of the subject of the sale at the time of such sale and what the property would have been worth had the representations been true, with interest in a proper case. But it was said in the same connection, and the learned counsel must have observed it if they read the opinion with the care that should be observed before applying for a rehearing, that such rule must always be applied in the light of the familiar principle upon which all rules for measuring recoverable damages are based, that only loss caused to the deceived party as the natural and proximate consequence of the deceit, is to be compensated for. So, where a sale price is fixed and paid on a represented situation and character of the subject of the sale, which is a full equivalent therefor, but in excess of what the property would be worth were it in fact as represented, the seller suffers no loss, therefore neither the rule mentioned, nor any other for measuring recoverable loss, can be invoked in his favor. In the case of a deceived vendee, in that the property is worth more than it would be if its character and quality were as represented, and upon which the sale price was made, it would hardly be claimed that, notwithstanding the beneficial character of the bargain to him, the rule would still apply that he is entitled to recover the difference between the value of the thing as represented and the actual value. That would be exceedingly absurd, as will be freely admitted upon a moment's consideration. It is an absolute essential to the application of the rule that the deceit shall result in loss to the deceived party, and that is so whether such party be vendee or vendor. If the difference between the two values represent a gain to the alleged defrauded party, instead of a loss, clearly, there is no room for the application of any rule of damages upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vogel v. Shaw
... ... practiced by Vogel upon Dunn. 27 C. J. 4 and 5; Potter v ... Necedah Lumber Co., 81 N.W. 118. An assignment of a ... written lease must be in writing ... ...
-
Harweger v. Wilcox
...Wis. 58, 51 N.W. 1124; Warner v. Benjamin (1895), 89 Wis. 290, 62 N.W. 179; Potter v. Necedah Lumber Co. (1899), 105 Wis. 25, 80 N.W. 88, 81 N.W. 118; Ohrmundt v. Spiegelhoff (1921), 175 Wis. 214, 184 N.W. 692; Luedke v. Pauly Motor Truck Co. (1924), 182 Wis. 346, 195 N.W. 853; Mueller v. M......
-
Shaw v. Gilbert
...subsequently attained solvency of the debtor. Foster v. Taggart, 54 Wis. 391, 11 N. W. 793;Potter v. Lumber Co., 105 Wis. 25, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118. The worthlessness of the claim at the time of its acquisition would not fix the measure of a defendant's liability, and the converse ought......
-
Mueller v. Michels
...thing as represented and the actual value. That is the rule adopted by this court. Potter v. Necedah Lbr. Co., 105 Wis. 25, 80 N. W. 88, 81 N. W. 118;Birdsey v. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52;Kobiter v. Albrecht, 82 Wis. 58, 51 N. W. 1124;Warner v. Benjamin, 89 Wis. 290, 62 N. W. 179. [10] It was ......