Schumaker v. Mather

• Decision Date: 26 April 1892
• Parties: SCHUMAKER v. MATHER et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

133 N.Y. 590

30 N.E. 755

SCHUMAKER

v.MATHER et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 26, 1892.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

Action by Clara A. Schumaker against Joshua Mather and another. From a judgment of the general term affirming a judgment of the circuit court for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

John W. Boyle, for appellants.

Scripture & Backus, (Oswald Prentiss Backus, of counsel,) for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendants to recover of them the damages alleged to have been sustained by her by reason of false and fraudulent representations made by them upon the sale of their farm. The farm was near Rome, in Oneida county, N. Y., and the defendants took in exchange the plaintiff's farm, near Richfield Springs, in Otsego county, N. Y.; the sale being upon certain terms, which are not necessary to be fully stated. In the exchange of properties the valuation of the defendants' farm was placed at about $65 for the acre. The plaintiff, in her complaint, alleges that the representations made were that ‘it was one of the best stock farms in Oneida county, * * * and that it then kept and would keep 100 head of cattle and 16 horses, and that said land was worth more than $65 per acre.’ The defendants, in their answer, denied the allegations of fraud, and set up a counterclaim for damages by reason of fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff with respect to the quantity of land in her farm, and in other respects. They jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and upon this appeal by the defendants from the affirmance of the judgment they insist that upon the evidence the plaintiff should have been nonsuited, or a verdict ordered for them. In submitting the case to the jury the trial judge, upon the issue of the defendants' fraud, instructed them that the question of fact they were to determine was whether the defendant Joshua Mather made the representation, in substance, that ‘the Rome farm did keep and maintain from its products 100 head of cattle and 16 horses.’ In his instructions the trial judge told the jury that, in order to find against the defendants, their inquiry must be confined to this representation alone, and should not extend to any others; that the representation in question must have been intentionally made, and must have been such as to convey the idea, not that the farm would keep from its products, but that it did actually keep through the year, that number of cattle and horses. Having, in substance, so instructed them, he charged them further, in the light of certain judicial opinions from reported cases, extracts from which he read, that they should consider whether the plaintiff had such full opportunity to examine and find out about the farm as that she could ‘not be heard to allege that she was drawn into this trade by the misrepresentations of the other side.’ He left it to them expressly to say ‘whether or not, even if this representation was false, and was made with intent to deceive, this representation was relied upon, and was the representation and thing which induced and brought about this purchase. If you find that it was not, the plaintiff's cause of action fails.’ This reference to the charge sufficiently indicates the confines of the issue left for the verdict of the jury. Taken with other portions, it was perfectly fair, and as favorable to the defendants as they could have reasonably expected.

We are then led to consider, in connection with it, whether the evidence in the case was such as to warrant the trial judge in submitting such an issue to the jury at all. Did the evidence and the circumstances of the case make out a cause of action? The negotiations were conducted between the defendants and the plaintiff's husband, acting as her agent, and arose out of an interview in their banking house in Utica, at which Joshua Mather spoke to him about the farm in Rome, and proposed that he should go there with a young lawyer, who had the sale of it in his charge. At this interview plaintiff's husband testified that Joshua Mather said ‘that he had a splendid stock farm there, and gave a description of it, and the cattle he was keeping, and the blooded horses and the blooded cattle. * * * He said he had 16 head of horses there, and brood mares, * * * and that it was one of the finest stock farms in Oneida county. * * * He told me the number of cattle that he had, * * * one hundred head of cattle that he kept on the farm.’ Plaintiff's husband visited it, and, upon his retarn, says he saw Joshua Mather, who asked him if he had been shown ‘the blooded stock and the colts' and the crops; that he stated the crops were than 3,000 bushels of oats and five or six hundred bushels of rye; and wanted to sell the farm to him as ‘one of the best and most productive farms in Oneida county.’ Plaintiff's husband visited the farm twice. Upon the first occasion he says he was shown the buildings upon it, but did not go over the farm, being hurried away by Mather's lawyer; and on the second occasion the weather was so inclement, from rain and snow, as, in connection with his condition of health, to prevent real or much examination of the farm. When they came to conclude the transaction, the plaintiff's husband says it was at Mather's office, and in consequence of a letter from the lawyer to come there. That he saw Joshua Mather, to whom, after Mather had stated his proposed terms of exchange, he said: ‘My wife, Mrs. Schumaker, has instructed me to say to you that, if there is a trade effected, that she trades wholly upon your representations; that she wouldn't take my judgment, or no other man's at this time of the year, upon a farm. Upon those conditions we trade, if we trade.’ That his wife asked if they were ‘responsible parties.’ That he had said he considered they were, and that then Mather in reply said, ‘We are good for what we say or agree to do.’ The evidence was sharply conflicting as to what was said by the different parties at various times, as to dates and details, as to where and how interviews occurred, and when and where the negotiations were concluded. There was evidence for the plaintiff that she relied upon and made the purchase of the Rome farm because of what Joshua had represented as to it, and there was evidence for the defendants as to full opportunities offered to her to make every examination and investigation, and as to how thoroughly her husband, who was her agent, and was of capacity and experience, availed himself of them to inform himself, with every facility offered for that purpose. There was...