Stanhope v. Swafford
| Decision Date | 12 May 1890 |
| Citation | 45 N.W. 403,80 Iowa 45 |
| Parties | STANHOPE v. SWAFFORD et al |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided May, 1890.
Appeal from Buchanan District Court.--HON. J. J. NEY, Judge.
ACTION to recover for the false and fraudulent representations made by defendants as to certain land in Nebraska traded to plaintiff, with a stock of merchandise, for a farm in Buchanan county, and a small tract of land in Linn county. There was a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. This case has before been in this court. 77 Iowa 594.
AFFIRMED.
Lake & Harmon, for appellants.
Woodward & Cook, for appellee.
I.
The petition alleges that plaintiff traded his farm in Buchanan county and twenty-five acres of land in Linn county for a stock of goods, and three hundred and twenty acres of land situated in Nebraska; that defendants represented the Nebraska land was worth two thousand dollars, and on each quarter section there was one hundred acres of good, level plow-land, and no part of the land was so rough that it could not be plowed, or that one could not drive over it with a horse and buggy. It is alleged that defendants represented that they had seen the land, and knew all about it, and that plaintiff had never seen it, and relied wholly upon the defendants' statements and representations made to him that defendants' representations were false and fraudulent, and well known to them so to be, and that in fact there was not forty acres of level plow-land upon the whole tract; that it was "bluffy," and so rough that a team could not be driven over it, and was not fit for cultivation, and was not worth to exceed two dollars per acre. It is alleged that the contract between the parties was partly in writing and partly oral, the representations as to the Nebraska land being verbal. The defendants file separate answers, each denying generally the allegations of the petition. The defendant L. G. Swafford, in his answer, admits the trade, and alleges that the only contract to which he was a party was wholly embodied in a written instrument which he sets out in his answer. He denies that there was any false or fraudulent representations, and denies that he authorized or procured such representations to be made to induce plaintiff to enter into the contract. C. G. Swafford admits the contract as set up by his codefendant, and alleges that it was the only contract entered into by the parties. He alleges that the value of the land traded by plaintiff to defendants is twenty-two hundred dollars less than the price at which it was estimated in the trade, which was fixed at plaintiff's request, but was not intended by the parties as the actual price allowed for the land in the trade. This allegation of the answer was stricken out, on motion, on the ground that it set up a variance and change of the written contract proposed to be proved by parol.
The evidence tends to show that the defendants were copartners and as such owned the stock of goods and Nebraska land traded to plaintiff. The negotiations were begun by the plaintiff and his agent with both of defendants, but defendant C. G., with the assent and direction of the other defendant, went with plaintiff and his agent to see the plaintiff's farm, and was authorized to complete the trade. After the farm was seen by the defendant, a proposition was made to put the Nebraska land into the trade, which was finally accepted, after the representations as to its quality and character were made by defendant. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the value and character of the land, and relied upon defendants' representations in making the trade. Defendants knew the character of the land, having before seen it and examined it. The evidence shows that the land was of the character and value alleged in plaintiff's petition. The written contract entered into is in the following language:
To continue reading
Request your trial