Rudolphi v. Wright

• Decision Date: 12 December 1913
• Citation: 124 Minn. 24,144 N.W. 430
• Parties: RUDOLPHI et al. v. WRIGHT et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

124 Minn. 24

144 N.W. 430

RUDOLPHI et al.

v.WRIGHT et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 12, 1913.

Appeal from District Court, Brown County; I. M. Olsen, Judge.

Action by Henry Rudolphi and others against Joseph A. Wright and others. From judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence is examined and held to justify a finding of the trial court that the plaintiff was induced by the fraudulent representations of the defendant to execute a deed upon an exchange of lands.

The fact that the plaintiff saw the lands before he traded is not conclusive against him on the issue of fraud.

Certain irrelevant evidence offered by the plaintiff held not to be prejudicial so as to require a new trial. Elliott, Schall & Brown and Reed 3 Swift, all of Minneapolis, for appellants.

Somsen, Dempsey & Mueller, of New Ulm, for respondents.

DIBELL, C.

This action is brought to cancel a deed conveying certain property in the city of New Ulm, made by the plaintiffs to the defendant Joseph A. Wright, upon the ground of fraud. The deed was given upon an exchange of New Ulm city property for Wisconsin lands. The court found for the plaintiffs and the defendants appeal from the judgment. Henry Rudolphi and Joseph A. Wright are the two active parties, the other two being their respective wives.

[1] 1. The evidence sufficiently supports the finding of the trial court that the deed made by the plaintiffs was procured by fraud. The New Ulm property was the homestead of the plaintiffs, was worth $6,000, and was income bearing. It was traded for 621 acres of unimproved, cut-over, sandy and swampy lands in Wisconsin. The court found that the Wisconsin lands were not worth more than three dollars per acre. Some of the witnesses put the value much higher, as high as $10 or $12 per acre. The court was justified in finding that they were substantially worthless except for trading purposes. The defendant had traded gold stock for them. The court was justified in finding that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented the value, character and quality of the lands, and that he fraudulently pointed out the boundaries of the lands and that the plaintiff relied upon the misrepresentations made.

[2] 2. The plaintiff went to the lands and made some examination of them. With him ws the defendant, and Henry A. Rudolphi, the plaintiff's nephew, who was instrumental in bringing the plaintiff and the defendant together and who was to have a commission from the defendant. Young Rudolphi rather discouraged a thorough...