Seawell v. Pacific & Idaho Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1912 |
| Parties | LESTER SEAWELL and LILLIAN M. SEA WELL, Appellants, v. PACIFIC & IDAHO NORTHERN RAILWAY CO., Respondent |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
ACTION ON CONTRACT-FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION-EVIDENCE.
(Syllabus by the court.)
1. In an action on an agreement of compromise and settlement of differences and disputes, where a defense is made that the agreement was entered into by the defendant relying upon certain false and fraudulent statements that were made by the plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract, and that the plaintiff knew such statements were false and fraudulent and that the defendant, not knowing of the falsity of such statements, relied and acted upon them, the evidence is sufficient to sustain and support a verdict in favor of the defendant.
2. Evidence examined in this case and held sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Washington County. Hon. Ed. L. Bryan, Judge.
Action on contract. Judgment for plaintiffs for a part only of the sum demanded, from which plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded in favor of respondent.
Feltham & Ryan, and Perky & Crow, for Appellants.
Heigho in view of his official relation to the respondent corporation, the approaching settlement, and his increased responsibility to the respondent which such settlement imposed, was under the duty to inquire into the records of this shipment, in order that he might be prepared to safeguard the interests of his company in that settlement. ( Dambmann v. Schulting, 75 N.Y. 61; Cleaveland v Richardson, 132 U.S. 318, 10 S.Ct. 100, 33 L.Ed. 384; Pattison v. Albany Bldg. & Loan Assn., 63 Ga. 376.)
The respondent company was at no disadvantage as to means of knowledge. The way-bills, shipping contracts and reports upon which it relied were of its own making and in its possession. (Hennessy v. Bacon, 137 U.S. 78, 11 S.Ct. 17, 34 L.Ed. 605; College Park etc. Belt Line v. Ide, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 273, 40 S.W. 66; Fishkill Savings Inst. v Nat. Bank, 80 N.Y. 168, 36 Am. Rep. 595.)
False representations are not actionable unless the purchaser has been fraudulently induced to forbear inquiry as to their truth. (Brown v. Bledsoe, 1 Idaho 749.)
Richards & Haga, and Frank Harris, for Respondent.
Any false representation of a material fact, made with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it shall be acted upon by another in entering into a contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes fraud, and will entitle the party deceived thereby to avoid the contract or to maintain an action for the damages sustained. (9 Cyc. 411, D. 2, and cases cited under note 71; Hanscom v. Drulard, 79 Cal. 234, 21 P. 737.)
Where false statements as to quantity are made for a fraudulent purpose, the one who relies upon them will not be denied a recovery because he acted upon the representations without measuring. (Ledbetter v. Davis, 121 Ind. 119, 22 N.E. 744; Baker v. Lever, 67 N.Y. 309, 23 Am. Rep. 117.)
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
On the 18th day of September, 1908, Lester Seawell and Mrs. Lester Seawell shipped a band of sheep from Evergreen, Idaho, over the Pacific & Idaho Northern Railroad Company's line of road, and the train conveying the sheep was wrecked between Evergreen and Weiser, and a number of sheep were killed, maimed and injured. Seawell was with the train but refused to assume charge of the sheep or have anything to do with them at the time of the wreck, and the railroad company cared for them and after the wreck was cleared away transported them to Weiser. The sheep were held at the latter place, pending a settlement between the shippers and the railroad company, and in the meanwhile some of them got out of the corrals and were killed and injured by trains on the Oregon Short Line road. On the night of September 22d, or, rather, sometime between 11 o'clock that night and 1 or 2 o'clock the following morning, an agreement was entered into between the shippers and the company which contains the following introductory recital:
"Whereas, on the 18th day of September, A. D. 1908, Lester Seawell and Mrs. Lester Seawell shipped 4758 head of sheep over the Pacific and Idaho Northern R. R. Co., which said sheep were shipped under the names of said parties and of other parties, and consigned to said parties and other parties, and whereas, the train conveying said sheep was wrecked on the line of said railroad company, and a portion of said sheep killed, maimed and lost by reason of said wreck, and whereas, a number of said sheep were killed, maimed and injured in the vicinity of Weiser, Idaho, and whereas, the said Lester Seawell and Mrs. Lester Seawell claim damages from said railroad company by reason of the occurrences hereinbefore recited, and whereas, the said railroad company have disclaimed any liability for damages arising from said acts and occurrences, and whereas, said railroad company and Lester Seawell and Mrs. Lester Seawell desire to settle said controversy without a resort to litigation, in consideration of the premises it is agreed by and between the aforementioned parties to said controversy that the same be compromised as follows, to wit:"
The foregoing recital is followed by the terms of the contract which provide in effect that the railroad company shall turn over to the shipper all sheep that are sound and would pay to the shippers the sum of ten cents per head on all sheep turned back to them as compensation for shrinkage, and that it would pay to the shippers the "current price in Weiser, Idaho, for all sheep killed, crippled or missing." The contract further provided that the delivery should be made on the following day, September 23d, and that the company's employees should remain in charge of the sheep until such time as the delivery was fully made and completed in order to enable it to ascertain the number turned back and the number killed, injured and missing. The sound sheep were accordingly delivered to the shippers on the 23d, and the shippers thereupon demanded payment for a number of sheep representing the difference between the number turned back and the number they claimed had been shipped, aggregating 4,758 head. The number claimed by appellants represented a shipment of sixteen cars,--fifteen cars carrying 300 head each and the sixteenth car carrying 258 head. The company's manager declined and refused to pay for that number and claimed that, on the contrary, the shippers had only delivered to the company 4,458 head and that the shipment consisted of only fifteen cars. There was consequently a difference between the shipper and the carrier of one full carload of sheep, and they were unable to agree on the number, and this action was accordingly instituted.
The shipper sued upon the contract of settlement of September 22d and the railroad company defended to the extent of the number of sheep represented by one carload of 300 head on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation on the part of the shipper made at the time the agreement was entered into. The company claimed that the contract was entered into at the office of the shipper's attorneys at a late hour of the night when its offices were closed and its records and files were not available or accessible, and that the recital in the contract as to the number of sheep shipped was accepted and made wholly upon the representation of the shipper, and that the company's agent and manager relied upon such statement as being true and correct at the time it was made, whereas...
To continue reading
Request your trial