Schmeisser v. Albinson
| Decision Date | 29 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,736 - (72) |
| Parties | GEORGE SCHMEISSER v. JOHN A. ALBINSON |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Nobles county to recover $4,500 damages for fraudulent representations in the exchange of farms. The facts are stated in the opinion. The answer alleged that, before the exchange was made, plaintiff went to defendant's land and carefully examined it and the buildings thereon. The reply was a denial of the new matter set up in the answer. The case was tried before Nelson, J and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,321.28. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, he appealed. Affirmed.
Fraud -- verdict sustained by evidence.
In an action for damages on the ground that defendant had made false representations regarding the condition, soil and previous crop of a farm traded by defendant to plaintiff held that the evidence sustains the verdict.
Charge to jury.
There was no error in an instruction to the jury that representations made to the wife of plaintiff would be the same as if made to the plaintiff, if they found that plaintiff was a man that listened to and was governed by his wife's directions, and that the defendant knew or had reason to believe such to be the situation.
Charge to jury.
In actions to recover damages for fraud and deceit, an instruction that plaintiff is entitled to recover upon establishing the cause alleged by a fair preponderance of the evidence held correct.
Evidence.
No prejudicial error appears in the rulings of the court on the reception or exclusion of testimony at the trial.
George W. Wilson and E. H. Canfield, for appellant.
J. A. Town, for respondent.
Action in deceit for damages resulting from misrepresentations as to the soil and condition of a farm traded to plaintiff by defendant. Defendant appeals from the order denying a new trial after verdict for plaintiff. The errors assigned here relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, to the charge of the court, and to rulings upon the admissibility of testimony.
Plaintiff, a farmer, owned and resided on a one hundred sixty acre farm in Nobles County, Minnesota. The defendant was in the real estate and lumber business at Worthington, Minnesota, and owned a three hundred twenty acre farm in Sherburne county. A mortgage of $2,500 was on plaintiff's farm, and one of $4,000 on defendant's. For some weeks prior to February 12, 1908, negotiations had been pending for an exchange, and during that time defendant took plaintiff to Sherburne county to see the farm. On the date mentioned the trade was made and the deeds delivered, subject to the stated mortgages.
The false representations alleged to have been made by defendant and on the strength of which plaintiff claims he traded farms, relate to the market value of the Sherburne county farm, its soil, its crop the year previous, and the condition of the buildings. The claim of the plaintiff was that defendant represented the farm to be of the value of $29.50 per acre, that the soil was black loam on a clay subsoil, that the one-third of the previous year's crop netted defendant $900, and that the buildings were in good repair. We may dismiss the misrepresentation as to the market value as being mere trade talk, for apparently that issue was not submitted to the jury. The evidence of plaintiff was to the effect that the farm was represented to be good farming land, that defendant the year previous realized $900 for his share of the crop, that the soil was black loam on a clay subsoil, or, as plaintiff expressed it, black clay soil, and that the buildings were in good condition. If these representations were made, there is no doubt that they were false in this respect; that the farm was run down so that only poor crops could be raised; that instead of receiving $900 for his one-third share of the crop the year previous, defendant received nothing and permitted the tenant to retain the insignificant crop then raised; that the soil, instead of being black clay, had scarcely a trace of clay anywhere and was a light sandy loam; and that the roofs of certain of the buildings were out of repair. Of course defendant's contention was that he never represented the soil other than sandy; said nothing about the previous crop, or the buildings, but that plaintiff examined carefully both buildings and soil, the ground being then bare, and after such examination made the deal. Plaintiff contended that there were some two or more inches of newly fallen snow when he got to the farm, so that the condition of the roofs of the buildings or the character of the soil could not be ascertained. He also says defendant supplied him with liquor on the way out to look at the farm, and when once there hurried him away.
A reading of the printed record gives the impression that plaintiff knows the English language imperfectly and is rather dull of comprehension; that his experience and mental capacity are such that he might readily fall a victim to the plausible and designing. At any rate, his wife, who ought to know him, seemed to entertain well-grounded fears on that score and so stated to defendant. Defendant, on the other hand, appears to have been an experienced business man, keen alert, and coherent in his testimony, and apparently able to appreciate its effect on the issues involved. In any business deal he would undoubtedly have a great advantage over plaintiff, were he disposed to use it to plaintiff's loss. Notwithstanding that defendant's testimony appears plausible on the printed page, the jury found that of plaintiff and his wife the more credible. The trial court, who had the opportunity of observing the witnesses and their manner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial