St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Reed

Citation1913 OK 297,37 Okla. 350,132 P. 355
Decision Date06 May 1913
Docket NumberCase Number: 2991
PartiesST. LOUIS & S. F. R. CO. v. REED.
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Syllabus

¶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.

ROBERTSON, C.

¶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:

"Further replying to said answer and release mentioned therein, plaintiff says that owing to her injuries which she sustained by the reasons mentioned in her petition in the above-entitled action, she was greatly shocked and mentally disturbed; that immediately after she had received said injuries she was taken on the same train to the said St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company's physician, at Hugo, Okla., where she was examined by said physician and agents of said defendant, on the same day and within a short time after her arrival, and for the purpose of obtaining same, and of inveigling and deceiving her into executing it, the physician and the claim agent of the defendant stated to the plaintiff that she was but slightly injured and would recover her health in a short time, and that her injuries consisted only of slight bruises and the shock and jar of the cars at the time of her attempt to enter the said cars, that she was scared worse than she was hurt, and that she would never know she had been hurt by morning. Plaintiff, further replying, says said statements and representations were false and untrue, that plaintiff relied upon and believed said statements and representations, and was induced thereby to sign the release, and that, had she known they were false, she would not have signed it."

¶3 At the trial the following evidence relating to the alleged fraud was offered, to wit (case-made, p. 29):

"Q. What did he (meaning the company physician) say your condition would be in the morning, if anything? Mr. Foster: We object to the question because it calls for a statement of an opinion which wouldn't be ground, or representation of facts that would justify the variance of the release. By the Court: Overruled. (Defendant excepts.) A. Well, the doctor said I wasn't hurt much and that I would be all right by morning; that there wasn't any bones broken; that I would be all right. (Defendant moves to strike out the answer of the witness. Motion overruled. Defendant excepts.) Q. Did you believe that statement? A. Yes, sir; I believed it, but I knew before I left Hugo that I was hurt worse than the doctor claimed I was. Q. That was after you made the release? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, you stated you believed the doctor's statements; if you had known your condition; would you or not have signed the release? (Objected to by defendant as calling for a conclusion and conjecture of witness. Overruled. Exceptions.) A. No, sir; I wouldn't have signed it if I knew I had been hurt."

¶4 On cross-examination (case-made, p. 38):

"Q. Then why did you rely on the statement he made to you? If you knew he hadn't examined you properly, why did you believe and rely on what he told you? A. Well, I
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Berryman v. Dore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 11, 1926
    ...... . . 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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 31, 1922
    ...... 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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • November 9, 1915
    ......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
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 27, 1925
    ......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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT