Reimers v. Brennan

• Decision Date: 17 April 1917
• Citation: 84 Or. 53,164 P. 552
• Parties: REIMERS ET UX. v. BRENNAN ET UX.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

164 P. 552

84 Or. 53

REIMERS ET UX. v. BRENNAN ET UX.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 17, 1917

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; George N. Davis, Judge.

Action by Edward Reimers and wife against T. F. Brennan and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for alleged fraudulent representations in an exchange of real properties. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, upon which a judgment of dismissal was entered, and plaintiffs appeal.

It appears that in August, 1913, the plaintiffs were the owners of a 200-acre ranch in Douglas county, Or., worth $9,000 they claim, which they traded to the defendants for lot 22, block L, Greenway's addition to Portland, Or., facing on two streets, upon which was situated a double flat building and a bungalow. They claim that the defendants' property was not worth over $5,355.55, and that it was traded to them on the basis of a valuation of $13,000, while their real estate was taken in exchange at $9,000, leaving a difference of $4,000, for which they executed to defendants a mortgage upon the Portland realty. The evidence shows that, after some preliminary negotiations conducted by correspondence plaintiff Reimers went to Portland and made a careful examination of the Brennan property. He also called upon a Mr. Meves, a restaurant man of his acquaintance, and discussed with him the desirability and value of defendants' premises. Mr. Meves referred him to a Mr Lofgren, an attorney, whom he consulted with reference to Portland values, and particularly in regard to the worth of the defendants' property. He also investigated one or two other propositions offered in exchange for his farm. He informed the Brennans that Mrs. Reimers would come to Portland in a few days and inspect the premises, which she did. In the meantime, Mr. Brennan visited the Roseburg ranch and an exchange as stated was thereupon effected upon the basis mentioned. After the exchange, the Brennans went into possession of the farm, and the Reimers took possession of the city property. No complaint was made by the plaintiffs to the defendants for nearly a year after the deal, when this action was filed.

B. G Skulason, of Portland (Clark, Skulason & Clark, of Portland on the brief), for appellants. J. L. Conley, of Portland (Stapleton & Conley, of Portland, on the brief), for respondents.

BEAN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The questions in issue are the value of the property, and whether or not the defendants made fraudulent representations to the plaintiffs by which the exchange was consummated and on account of which they were damaged. During the course of the cross-examination of the defendant J. F. Brennan, and of certain other of the defendants' witnesses, counsel for plaintiffs on cross-examination sought to inquire whether the defendants had sold the Douglas county property for $15,000 within two years after the exchange. This line of cross-examination was objected to by counsel for defendants and held improper by the court. Thereupon the plaintiffs made an offer of proof in accordance with the questions asked, which was refused and exceptions duly saved.

Evidence of particular sales is permitted upon cross-examination in proving value in order to test the qualification of the witness. In the present case the witnesses were thoroughly examined as experts. It should also be kept in mind that plaintiffs were endeavoring to prove value in order to show fraud on the part of the defendants. If they had been permitted to show that about two years after the exchange of the properties in question the defendants had sold the ranch for $15,000, then the question of the bona fides of that transaction, the terms, and the kind of payment, would have been opened for investigation and another distinct issue raised instead of one being settled. East Penn. R. R. v. Hiester, 40 Pa. 53. The facts in regard to the terms and circumstances of the sale of the farm were not in evidence nor tendered.

There is another reason why plaintiffs should not be heard to question this ruling. In their pleading they complain that the defendants misrepresented and overvalued the Portland property. By the evidence offered they are attempting to show that they undervalued the ranch which they themselves traded in exchange. Value witnesses were called as to the real estate in both counties, and the question was fairly submitted to the jury. It was...