Reynolds v. Franklin

• Decision Date: 01 July 1890
• Citation: 44 Minn. 30,46 N.W. 139
• Parties: REYNOLDS v FRANKLIN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

44 Minn. 30

46 N.W. 139

REYNOLDSvFRANKLIN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 1, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. The complaint herein charged, and the testimony tended to show that, on the faith of false and fraudulent representations made by defendant, plaintiff was induced to exchange with him certain personal property (merchandise) for three separate parcels of land. The title to one of these parcels completely failed. Held, that the measure of damages was the market value of the property plaintiff parted with.

2. Under this rule as to the measure of damages, plaintiff was entitled to recover, if at all, such proportion of the total value of the merchandise as the value of the tract of land to which the title failed bore to the aggregate value of the three tracts for which he traded.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; HOOKER, Judge.

R. B. Forrest, for appellant.

Russell & Reed, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This case appears for a second time in this court, it having been heretofore reported in 39 Minn. 24,38 N. W. Rep. 636, where it was held that plaintiff might recover, as for fraud, upon evidence going to show false representations by defendant, made, as of his own knowledge, respecting the title to real estate, to plaintiff, who, being ignorant of the facts, purchased relying upon the representations. From the testimony in the case as certified up, it appears that, while this transaction is not the one considered in an action between these same parties, (41 Minn. 279,43 N. W. Rep 53,) it is of the same general character. It was a trade or exchange of a quantity of personal property (merchandise) owned by plaintiff for several tracts of land owned or controlled by defendant. In the case just mentioned, defendant, after receiving the personalty, refused to convey certain of the tracts of land, as he had agreed to do, and plaintiff's action was upon contract; while in this the title as to one parcel of land, conveyed by a third person, at defendant's request, to plaintiff, wholly failed, and his action is one of tort, based on alleged false and fraudulent representations as to the title.

The principal contention between the parties is as to the measure of damages, and upon this matter the trial court erred in its rulings, as well as when charging the jury. The amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover was not the price fixed or placed by the parties when making their trade upon the tract of land in question, for the action was in tort; and if the jury believed that defendant was guilty of the false and fraudulent representations alleged, and that plaintiff parted with his property relying upon the same, then defendant was bound to make good the loss sustained,-he was liable to respond in such damages as naturally and proximately resulted from the fraud. But that would not necessarily be the fixed price placed upon the real estate by the parties. It might be less, and it might prove to be more. The actual loss sustained was the market value of the personal property, which by means of a fraudulent act defendant had secured from the plaintiff. It was not a question of what the latter might have gained, but of what he lost by reason of defendant's deception. The suit was not brought for breach of contract, but the gravamen of the complaint was the alleged deceit and fraud of the defendant, by means of which the plaintiff was...