Schinzer v. Wyman
| Decision Date | 25 March 1914 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied April 22, 1914.
Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, Pollock, J.
Action to have declared null and void and to set aside two warranty deeds, a contract for a deed, and a certain receipt relating to said transaction, and for a personal judgment for the amount of certain mortgages placed by the defendant upon the land in controversy. Judgment for plaintiff.
Reversed.
Judgment of the District Court reversed, with directions.
Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellant.
The one particular ground upon which plaintiff asks for cancelation in her complaint has been ignored, and the court has gone out of the issues to find independent grounds for the decree of cancelation entered. Such procedure requires a reversal of the judgment. Harkins v. Cooley, 5 S.D. 227, 58 N.W 560; Couch v. State, 14 N.D. 361, 103 N.W. 942; Chaffee-Miller Land Co. v. Barber, 12 N.D. 478, 97 N.W. 850.
It is not the province of courts to make contracts for parties, nor to "undo a bargain because it is hard," nor to deprive a person of the fruits of a good bargain, in the absence of other sufficient reasons. Ruttland Marble Co v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 355, 19 L.Ed. 955, 960, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 291; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; Henniges v. Paschke, 9 N.D. 489, 81 Am. St Rep. 588, 84 N.W. 350; 6 Cyc. 267, 268; Soberanes v. Soberanes, 97 Cal. 140, 31 P. 910.
Canceling an executed contract is an exertion of the most extraordinary power of a court of equity. Atlantic Delaine Co. v. James, 94 U.S. 207, 24 L.Ed. 112; Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U.S. 380, 30 L.Ed. 958, 7 S.Ct. 1015; Ruttland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 354, 19 L.Ed. 955, 960, 3 Mor. Min. Rep. 291; Veazie v. Williams, 8 How. 134, 157, 12 L.Ed. 1018, 1028; Union R. Co. v. Dull, 124 U.S. 173, 183, 31 L.Ed. 417, 421, 8 S.Ct. 433.
Fraud and misrepresentation must clearly appear. Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U.S. 325, 30 L.Ed. 949, 7 S.Ct. 1015; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 125 U.S. 273, 300, 31 L.Ed. 747, 756, 8 S.Ct. 850; Colorado Coal & I. Co. v. United States, 123 U.S. 307, 317, 31 L.Ed. 182, 186, 8 S.Ct. 131; United States v. Hancock, 133 U.S. 193, 197, 33 L.Ed. 601, 604, 10 S.Ct. 264.
To set aside a written contract, fraud or misrepresentation must be proved by clear, convincing, and unambiguous evidence. Jasper v. Hazen, 4 N.D. 6, 23 L.R.A. 58, 58 N.W. 454; Eames v. Hardin, 111 Ill. 634; Gassert v. Bogk, 7 Mont. 585, 1 L.R.A. 240, 19 P. 281, 149 U.S. 17, 37 L.Ed. 631, 13 S.Ct. 738; Locke v. Moulton, 96 Cal. 21, 30 P. 957; Ensminger v. Ensminger, 75 Iowa 89, 9 Am. St. Rep. 462, 39 N.W. 208; Howland v. Blake, 97 U.S. 624, 24 L.Ed. 1027; Kent v. Lasley, 24 Wis. 654; McGuin v. Lee, 10 N.D. 160, 86 N.W. 714; Riley v. Riley, 9 N.D. 580, 84 N.W. 347; Wells v. Geyer, 12 N.D. 316, 96 N.W. 289; Carter v. Carter, 14 N.D. 66, 103 N.W. 425; Wadge v. Kittleson, 12 N.D. 452, 97 N.W. 856; Little v. Braun, 11 N.D. 410, 92 N.W. 800; Northwestern F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Lough, 13 N.D. 601, 102 N.W. 160; Heyrock v. Surerus, 9 N.D. 28, 81 N.W. 36; Chilson v. Houston, 9 N.D. 498, 84 N.W. 354; Liland v. Tweto, 19 N.D. 551, 125 N.W. 1032; Miller v. Smith, 20 N.D. 96, 126 N.W. 499; Anderson v. Anderson, 17 N.D. 275, 115 N.W. 836; Smith v. Jensen, 16 N.D. 408, 114 N.W. 306.
A complaint which charges that a party who was to prepare a written contract in pursuance of a previous oral agreement prepares one materially different, and by a trick or device has it signed, charges an actual fraud for which equity will give relief. 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. 877, note; Bethell v. Bethell, 92 Ind. 324; Harrington v. Brewer, 56 Mich. 301, 22 N.W. 813; 9 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 686-688, and cases cited; Bump, Fraud. Conv. 114, 193, § 28; Stevens v. Meyers, 14 N.D. 398, 104 N.W. 529; 2 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. Perkins's ed. p. 992.
It is settled that the decree must conform to the allegations, as well as to the proofs, in the cause. 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. Perkins's ed. p. 377; Story, Eq. Pl. 257; Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 522, 5 L.Ed. 513; Jackson v. Ashton, 11 Pet. 229, 9 L.Ed. 698; James v. M'Kernon, 6 Johns. 564; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Rae, 9 N.D. 482, 84 N.W. 346; McClory v. Ricks, 11 N.D. 42, 88 N.W. 1043.
The findings and judgment must conform to the issues made by the pleading. Harkins v. Cooley, 5 S.D. 227, 58 N.W. 560; Winona v. Minnesota R. Constr. Co. 27 Minn. 427, 6 N.W. 795, 8 N.W. 148; Devoe v. Devoe, 51 Cal. 543; Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278, 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 124; 9 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 684; 18 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 808.
The plaintiff cannot rely on other misrepresentations than those alleged in the bill. 6 Cyc. 333, 334; Touchstone v. Staggs, Tex. Civ. App. , 39 S.W. 189; Wren v. Moncure, 95 Va. 369, 28 S.E. 588.
A recovery will not be allowed upon a case, although proved, which differs essentially from that alleged in the bill. Smith v. Nicholas, 8 Leigh, 354; Brown v. Toell, 5 Rand. (Va.) 543, 16 Am. Dec. 759; Thompson v. Jackson, 3 Rand. (Va.) 504, 15 Am. Dec. 721; Hunter v. Jett, 4 Rand. (Va.) 104; Potomac Mfg. Co. v. Evans, 84 Va. 717, 6 S.E. 2; Crocket v. Lee, 7 Wheat. 522, 5 L.Ed. 513; Dorr v. Pacific Ins. Co. 7 Wheat. 590, 5 L.Ed. 531; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 27 N.J.Eq. 399, 28 N.J.Eq. 485.
Parties are confined to the issues made by their pleadings in this court, as much as in a court of law. Stafford v. Stafford, 1 N.J.Eq. 525; 1 Dan. Ch. Pl. & Pr. 328, 434 et seq.; Doughty v. Doughty, 7 N.J.Eq. 643; Pasman v. Montague, 30 N.J.Eq. 385; Montesquieu v. Sandys, 18 Ves. Jr. 302, 11 Revised Rep. 197; Snider v. Wilson, Iowa , 78 N.W. 802; United States v. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co. 142 U.S. 510, 35 L.Ed. 1099, 12 S.Ct. 308; Wait v. Kellogg, 63 Mich. 138, 30 N.W. 80, 18 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 899; Oliphant v. Liversidge, 142 Ill. 160, 30 N.E. 334; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. p. 560, and cases cited; Smith v. Allis, 52 Wis. 337, 9 N.W. 155; 1 Cyc. 619, 620, 623-626.
Fraud without damage is no ground for relief. Garrow v. Davis, 15 How. 272, 277, 14 L.Ed. 692, 694; Smith v. Richards, 13 Pet. 26, 37, 10 L.Ed. 42, 47; Marshall v. Hubbard, 117 U.S. 415, 417, 29 L.Ed. 919, 6 S.Ct. 806; Angle v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 151 U.S. 1, 10, 38 L.Ed. 55, 59, 14 S.Ct. 240; Farnsworth v. Duffner, 142 U.S. 43, 55, 35 L.Ed. 931, 936, 12 S.Ct. 164; Clarke v. White, 12 Pet. 178, 196, 9 L.Ed. 1046, 1054; Conard v. Nicoll, 4 Pet. 291, 297, 7 L.Ed. 862, 864; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 716, 8 L.Ed. 547, 556; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 898; 6 Cyc. 326; Bailey v. Fox, 78 Cal. 389, 20 P. 868; Morrison v. Lods, 39 Cal. 381; Marriner v. Dennison, 78 Cal. 202, 20 P. 386; Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51, 2 Smith, Lead. Cas. 66, 1 Revised Rep. 634, 12 Eng. Rul. Cas. 235.
To rescind an executed contract for fraud, there must be damage as well as fraud, and this must clearly appear; and the decree must be according to the allegations, as well as to the proof. Primmer v. Patten, 32 Ill. 528; Wright v. Dame, 22 Pick. 55; McElwain v. Willis, 9 Wend. 548; McIntyre v. Trustees of Union College, 6 Paige, 239; Spence v. Duren, 3 Ala. 251; Danels v. Taggart, 1 Gill & J. 311; Edwards v. Massey, 8 N.C. (1 Hawks) 359; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, Ch. 236; Hood v. Inman, 4 Johns. Ch. 437; Edwards v. Chilton, 4 W.Va. 352; Crittenden v. Craig, 2 Bibb, 474; Cunningham v. Shields, 4 Hayw. (Tenn.) 44; Cotton v. Butterfield, 14 N.D. 473, 105 N.W. 236; Foster County Implement Co. v. Smith, 17 N.D. 178, 115 N.W. 663; Martinson v. Regan, 18 N.D. 472, 123 N.W. 285; Clapp v. Tower, 11 N.D. 556, 93 N.W. 862; Townshend v. Goodfellow, 40 Minn. 312, 3 L.R.A. 739, 12 Am. St. Rep. 736, 41 N.W. 1056.
John P. Devine, and A. C. Lacy, for respondent.
The term "fiduciary" involved the idea of trust, confidence; it refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted. It contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation. Stoll v. King, 8 How. Pr. 298; Thomas v. Whitney, 186 Ill. 225, 57 N.E. 808; Studybaker v. Cofield, 159 Mo. 596, 61 S.W. 246; Scattergood v. Kirk, 192 Pa. 263, 43 A. 1030.
"Confidential relations" is a term which includes all the variety of relations in which dominion may be exercised by one person over another. Harraway v. Harraway, 136 Ala. 499, 34 So. 836; Hetrick's Appeal, 58 Pa. 477; Roby v. Colehour, 135 Ill. 300, 25 N.E. 778; 2 Pom. Eq. Jur. 956; Liland v. Tweto, 19 N.D. 551, 125 N.W. 1032.
A trustee ex maleficio arises whenever a person acquires the legal title of property by false and fraudulent promises to hold it for certain specified purposes. Ahrens v. Jones, 169 N.Y. 555, 88 Am. St. Rep. 620, 62 N.E. 666; Northern P. R. Co. v. Kindred, 3 McCrary, 627, 14 F. 77.
A confidential trust relation existed between plaintiff and defendant, and defendant violated his trust when he sought to encumber plaintiff's property for his own use. Towle v. Ambs, 123 Ill. 410, 14 N.E. 689; Robbins v. Butler, 24 Ill. 387; Pironi v. Corrigan, 47 N.J.Eq. 135, 20 A. 218; Shute v. Johnson, 25 Ore. 59, 34 P. 965; Green v. Pesso, 92 Iowa 261, 60 N.W. 531; Gould v. Gould, 36 Barb. 270; Gumpel v. Castagnetto, 97 Cal. 15, 31 P. 898; Carbine v. McCoy, 85 Ga. 185, 11 S.E. 651; Wood v. Evans, 43 Mo.App. 230.
Even though the transaction itself could not have been impeached if no such confidential relation had existed, still the person so availing himself of his position of trust will not be permitted to retain the advantage so fraudulently acquired. Cowee v. Cornell, 75 N.Y. 91, 31 Am. Rep 434; Nesbit v. Lockman, 34 N.Y. 167; Story, Eq. Jur. 311; Sears v. Shafer, 6 N.Y. 268; Huguenin v. Baseley, 13 Ves. Jr. 105, 9 Revised Rep. 148, 276; Wright v. Proud, 13 Ves. Jr. 138; Harris v. Tremenheere, 15 Ves. Jr. 40, 10 Revised Rep. 5; Hugenin...
To continue reading
Request your trial