Roebuck v. Wick

• Decision Date: 18 May 1906
• Citation: 98 Minn. 130,107 N.W. 1054
• Parties: ROEBUCK et al. v. WICK.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

98 Minn. 130

107 N.W. 1054

ROEBUCK et al.

v.WICK.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 18, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Otter Tail County; L. L. Baxter, Judge.

Action by William E. Roebuck and Frederick A. Roebuck, doing business as the Western Manufacturing Company, against A. H. Wick. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

That a traveling salesman falsely represented to the vendee of certain goods that he had made sales of similar articles to a competitor engaged in the same business, in the same place, as the vendee, in evidence of which he produced a fictitious contract of sale to such competitor, is an artifice used to cheat or deceive another, within the rule avoiding a contract of sale for fraudulent misrepresentations.

Upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, made at trial, by plaintiff, the allegations of the answer will be liberally construed. E. E. Corliss, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton and Smith, Mead & Robertson, for respondents.

JAGGARD, J.

The complaint sought to recover for jewelry sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in accordance with a written contract attached thereto. The answer set up two defenses, viz.: (1) That the plaintiff willfully and falsely misrepresented, for the purpose of deceiving the defendant, that a competitor of the defendant, in the grocery business, in the same place, had given plaintiff such an order as was solicited from the defendant, and that the plaintiff, with intent to ‘induce the defendant to execute (an) agreement (of purchase), showed the defendant a contract, a duplicate of said (agreement), which purported to have been executed by (his said competitor), then and there telling the defendant that his said competitor had executed it, and that the defendant signed the contract in reliance on the misrepresentations which were false and untrue, and were known to be false and untrue by the plaintiffs when they were made.’ (2) That the goods described in said agreement were received by the defendant ‘and upon examination all of said goods were by the defendant found to be shoddy imitations of jewelry absolutely worthless; that at that time the defendant first learned that all of said statements so made by the plaintiff to induce him to execute said agreement were false; that the defendant immediately returned all of said goods to the plaintiffs and refused to accept them or any part of them and notified the plaintiffs of such return; that the plaintiffs had at the time of the commencement of this action in their possession, and have ever since had, all of said goods.’ The reply controverted the new matter set up in the answer. When the case came on for trial, the court granted a motion by the plaintiffs for judgment in their favor against the defendant, upon the pleadings. From the judgment entered thereon, this appeal was taken.

1. The allegations of fraud set forth in the answer stated a good defense. The trial court thought the production of the forged order by defendant's competitor was not sufficient to support an action for fraud. In his memorandum, he said: ‘While courts will go far to relieve parties in cases of fraud, they cannot insure them against the injurious consequences of all their foolish and ill-considered acts. An intelligent man like the defendant in this case is expected to protect himself...