Shelberg v. Jones
| Decision Date | 08 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 30054.,30054. |
| Citation | 170 Iowa 19,151 N.W. 1066 |
| Parties | SHELBERG v. JONES ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Charles A. Dudley, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for alleged fraud in an exchange of lands. Trial to a jury, verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant Jones appeals. Affirmed.Chester J. Eller, of Des Moines, for appellant.
John Newburn and John McLennan, both of Des Moines, and J. R. Price, of Albia, for appellee.
In his petition plaintiff alleges that defendants conspired to deceive and defraud him in an exchange of 320 acres of land owned by him in the state of Minnesota for 160 acres of land in Missouri, and that they did in fact fraudulently and falsely represent the Missouri land as being found in the near vicinity of a certain town, and having certain desirable improvements, to be all in cultivation and in blue grass pasture except about 50 acres of timber, when in truth and in fact it was located very much farther from town, had no improvements, and was in no part cultivated or in blue grass. Plaintiff further states that he relied upon said false representations and was deceived and induced thereby to make the exchange to his damage in a large sum for which he asks judgment against all the defendants. The defendants deny all the charges of conspiracy and of false representations on their part. The defendant Jones, to whom the Minnesota land was conveyed, also pleads certain counterclaims, but as they do not figure materially in the appeal, we need not stop to state them specifically. At the close of plaintiff's testimony the defendants moved for a directed verdict in their favor, on the ground that plaintiff's case is grounded upon an alleged conspiracy, and that no evidence of a conspiracy had been offered. The court overruled the motion to direct but announced that the question or charge of conspiracy would not be submitted to the jury, and further held that the general allegations of the petition were broad enough to permit a recovery on the charge of fraud and false representations, provided plaintiff should elect to amend the prayer of his petition to specifically ask a recovery on that ground. This the plaintiff consented to do, and the trial proceeded to its close. The jury returned a general verdict against all of the defendants for $2,475, and in answer to interrogatories found specifically that each of the defendants, Jones, Price, and Knepper, actively participated in the false representations by which the plaintiff had been misled to his injury. Defendants' motion for a new trial was denied, and judgment entered on the verdict.
[1] I. The appellant's first and principal argument is directed to the point that, the petition having charged a conspiracy and the trial court having held that no conspiracy had been proved, this was virtually an end of the case; or, if the case was to proceed, it was the duty of the court in giving its instructions to specifically inform the jury that there was no evidence of a conspiracy. To affirm the first proposition would be to place entirely too great stress upon the allegation that defendants conspired together to defraud the plaintiff by false representations. The actionable wrong, if any, is on the false representations, and not in the combination or conspiracy. If the false representations were made or participated in by the defendants acting together or in aid of one another, and that fact is alleged and proved, then the fact that plaintiff also charged that the wrong against him had been done in pursuance of a previously formed conspiracy, and that he had failed to prove it, was immaterial, and did not operate to prevent his recovery of a joint judgment against all of the defendants having any hand in the commission of the fraud. A plaintiff is not required to prove more of the matters alleged in his petition than is necessary to constitute a cause of action. If, for example, he charges two or more persons with having wickedly conspired to commit an assault and battery upon him, and that in pursuance of such combination they did without cause beat and bruise him, and upon the trial he proves no more than that they did, at a certain time and place, wrongfully and unitedly commit an assault and battery upon his person, his right of recovery is perfect even though he offer no word of testimony of the alleged conspiracy. Bearing this rule in mind, we may eliminate from the petition in this case every word thereof in reference to a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff, and there is still left the clear and distinct allegation of facts making a sufficient charge of false representations by the defendants upon which plaintiff relied to his injury. If, then, his proof supports such charge, he is entitled to recover....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlson v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons
...to the plaintiff except upon evidence, other than the admissions of Larson, tending to establish such liability. In Shelberg v. Jones, 170 Iowa 19, 151 N.W. 1066, were several defendants and the court submitted only two forms of verdict, one in favor of the plaintiff and against the defenda......
-
Carlson v. Decker, No. 42300.
...to the plaintiff except upon evidence, other than the admissions of Larson, tending to establish such liability. In Shelberg v. Jones, 170 Iowa, 19, 151 N. W. 1066, 1068, there were several defendants and the court submitted only two forms of verdict, one in favor of the plaintiff and again......