St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Reed
Citation | 1913 OK 297,37 Okla. 350,132 P. 355 |
Decision Date | 06 May 1913 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 2991 |
Parties | ST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. REED. |
Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
¶0 1. FRAUD--Proof. Fraud is a fact, to be established by evidence as any other fact.
2. RELEASE--Validity--"Fraud"--Sufficiency. As a general rule, before fraud (sufficient to warrant the cancellation of a release given by an injured passenger to a railroad company in a settlement for damages) can be established, it must be shown that a material representation has been made; that it was false; that when it was made the speaker knew it was untrue, or that it was made recklessly, without knowledge of its truth and as a positive assertion; that it was made with the intention that it should be acted upon by the one to whom it was made; that it was so acted upon by reason of the reliance placed upon it; and that damage or injury resulted thereby.
3. FRAUD--Fraudulent Misrepresentations--What Constitutes--"Representation." A "representation" within the meaning of the law of fraud is anything short of a warranty, which proceeds from the action or conduct of the party charged, and which is sufficient to create upon the mind a distinct impression of fact conducive to action. The gist of fraudulent misrepresentation is the producing of a false impression upon the mind of the other party, and, if this result is actually accomplished, the means of accomplishing it are immaterial.
4. RELEASE--Pleading in Avoidance--Sufficiency. Pleadings examined, and allegations of fraud held to be sufficient.
5. SAME--Validity--Fraud--Sufficiency of Evidence. Evidence examined and held to be sufficient to sustain a verdict.
W. T. Evans, R. A. Kleinschmidt, and E. H. Foster, for plaintiff in error.
Howe & Stanley, for defendant in error.
¶1 Defendant in error, while en route from Madill to Idabel, was injured at the former place on February 12, 1909, by a train belonging to plaintiff in error. She was carried from Madill to Hugo on the same train, where she was taken in charge by the company's claim agent, who there secured the services of a company physician, who examined her and told her that she was not seriously injured. While waiting at Hugo for the train to depart for Idabel she was asked by the claim agent to sign a release for damages and in consideration of $ 10 did execute a full and complete release and delivered the same to the claim agent. After completing her journey to Idabel, by the same train, on the same day, she discovered that she was more seriously injured than she thought, or than she had been told by the company physician. She at once brought suit for damages. The company answering, admitted liability, but pleaded in bar the written release herein above mentioned. Plaintiff replied by general denial, and, in addition, alleged that she was induced to and did execute the release by reason of the false and fraudulent representations made to her at the time of its execution by the claim agent and the company physician, and without which she would not have signed the same; that she relied upon and believed said statements to be true; that they were false and untrue; and that she was deceived thereby, etc. Upon the issues thus joined trial was had to the jury, which resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, on which judgment was entered. Defendant brings error and assigns numerous specifications; the only question, however, upon which it relies for reversal, in the language of counsel for plaintiff in error (Brief, p. 25) is:
"Our contention here, stated in plain language, is that there is a failure on the part of the plaintiff to establish by the evidence the allegations of the reply to the effect that the release was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation."
¶2 The affirmative matter of plaintiff's reply is as follows:
¶3 At the trial the following evidence relating to the alleged fraud was offered, to wit (case-made, p. 29):
¶4 On cross-examination (case-made, p. 38):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Berryman v. Dore
...... . . The. burden rests upon one who depends upon fraud to plead and. prove it. (Bretthauer v. Foley, 15 Cal. 19, 113 P. 356; St. Louis & S. F. R. R. v. Reed, 37 Okla. 350,. 132 P. 355; Anchor Buggy Co. v. Houtchens, 59 Wash. 697, 109 P. 1019; Allen v. Kane, 79 Wash. 248, 140. P. ......
-
Pocatello Security Trust Co. v. Henry
...... or conduct of the party charged, and which is sufficient to. create upon the mind a distinct impression of fact conducive. to action." (St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Reed,. 37 Okla. 350, 132 P. 355.). . . "Where. a party alleges and proves that he was induced, by material,. false ......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bruner
......L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Richards, 23 Okla. 256 [102 P. 92, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032]; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Nichols, 39 Okla. 522 [136 P. 159]; Herndon v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 37 Okla. 256 [128 P. 727]; St. L. & S. F. R. Co. v. Reed, 37 Okla. 350 [132 P. 355]. But this does not mean that a contract fairly and honestly entered into can be avoided for slight or frivolous reasons. Indeed, the rule is quite to the contrary. The law and the public policy of all civilized countries, so far as we have observed, favor settlements and ......
-
Schulte v. Bd. of Cnty. Comr'S
......Kemper, Hundley & McDonnell Dry Goods Co. v. Fischel, 4 Okla. 250, 44 P. 205; St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Reed, 37 Okla. 350, 132 P. 355. ¶33 The ground for cancellation relied upon by the respondent as shown by the proof was involved in the ......