Rucker v. Allendorph

• Decision Date: 06 April 1918
• Docket Number: 21,407
• Citation: 102 Kan. 771,172 P. 524
• Parties: BERT RUCKER, Appellant, v. C. W. ALLENDORPH and MARTHA S. ALLENDORPH, Appellees, et al
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

172 P. 524

102 Kan. 771

BERT RUCKER, Appellant, v. C. W. ALLENDORPH and MARTHA S. ALLENDORPH, Appellees, et al

No. 21,407

Supreme Court of Kansas

April 6, 1918

Decided January, 1918.

Appeal from Shawnee district court, division No. 1; ALSTON W. DANA judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

TORT-FEASORS--Contribution Between Joint Tort-feasors. A person who voluntarily commits an actionable wrong, either at the instigation of others or by acting jointly with them, for which wrong a judgment is afterward rendered against him, cannot recover from those who induced him to commit the wrong, or with whom he acted in its commission, any loss or damage sustained by him by reason of the rendition of the judgment.

Joseph M. Stark, Joseph G. Waters, and John C. Waters, all of Topeka, for the appellant.

Lee Monroe, James A. McClure, and C. M. Monroe, all of Topeka, for the appellees.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.:

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment rendered against him on the pleadings. These consisted of the plaintiff's petition, the defendants' answer, and the plaintiff's reply. The material facts established by the pleadings are substantially as follows:

For some years the defendants had been engaged in fraudulent real-estate transactions. These transactions consisted of the execution and delivery of purported warranty deeds pretending to convey the title to the real property therein described, and of delivering with such deeds spurious and forged abstracts of the title. These deeds and abstracts impliedly represented that the defendants had good title to the property, and were delivered for the purpose of defrauding those to whom the defendants effected a sale of the property. For some years the plaintiff had been a real-estate agent in Topeka. In 1911, he received from defendant H. A. Miller, a real-estate agent of Kansas City, Mo., a purported warranty deed pretending to convey certain real property in Missouri from the defendants C. W. Allendorph and Martha S. Allendorph. That deed was blank as to grantee, and did not convey any title to the land therein described. Marion A. Tatlow owned an equitable interest in real property in Morris county. W. E. Bacon was a subagent of the plaintiff. The deed received from the Allendorphs was, by the plaintiff, delivered to Bacon with instructions to Bacon to go to Tatlow, who lived at White City, and effect an exchange of the land described in the deed for an assignment of Tatlow's interest in the Morris county land. The exchange was made, and the deed was delivered to Tatlow by Bacon. When the deed was delivered to Tatlow, a purported abstract of the title to the Missouri land was also delivered to him. The abstract did not correctly represent that title. Neither the deed nor the abstract was examined by Rucker. Afterward, Tatlow prosecuted an action in the district court of Shawnee county against the plaintiff and Bacon, to recover the damages that he had sustained by reason of the fraud practiced on him in making the exchange of property, and recovered a judgment in that action against Rucker for $ 3,117. In that action the jury made special findings of fact, in substance, as follows: That Bacon fraudulently represented to Tatlow that the deed to the Missouri land was a valid instrument; that it conveyed a good title to the Missouri land; that the abstract of title was genuine; that these representations were made at the instigation of Rucker; that both he and Bacon knew that the representations were false; and that Tatlow relied on the representations and made the exchange.

In his petition in the present action, the plaintiff charges that the defendants practiced a fraud on him, and...