Tyson v. Ranney

• Decision Date: 08 January 1895
• Citation: 61 N.W. 563,89 Wis. 518
• Parties: TYSON v. RANNEY.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

89 Wis. 518

61 N.W. 563

TYSON

v.RANNEY.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 8, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Milwaukee county; D. H. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Emma E. Tyson against Philip M. Ranney to recover damages for false representations. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The plaintiff is a married woman, the wife of one Mark Tyson. Mark Tyson was a member of a partnership under the style, Tyson, Conrad & Co. Tyson, Conrad & Co., by an agreement in writing, sold their business and plant, a sash and door factory, to another firm, consisting of the defendant Ranney, John S. George, and Thomas Shea. They were to be paid for their business and plant by the conveyance of certain pine lands in Minnesota, and by certain stock in the new enterprise. The lands to be conveyed to Tyson, Conrad & Co. were apportioned among the partners by agreement, so that each partner was to receive conveyance of his portion in severalty. About one week after this trade had been agreed upon and arranged, but before any conveyance of the pine lands had been made, Mark Tyson informed his wife of the trade. This was her first information of it. It was arranged between Mark Tyson and his wife that the conveyance of his portion of the pine lands should be made directly to her by Ranney, who was the owner of them, and it was so done. It was claimed that Tyson was indebted to his wife for moneys belonging to her which he had had and used, and that this conveyance of the lands to her was designed as a payment or reimbursement to her of such moneys. Now it is claimed that Ranney, to induce the trade, had made representations to Mark Tyson of the character and value of the lands, and of the amount and value of the pine timber upon them, which were false in fact, and made with intent to deceive; that in fact the lands and timber were very different in character, and of very much less value than they would have been if they had been as represented. So the plaintiff, Mrs. Tyson, brought this action to recover damages for this deceit. She had verdict and judgment, from which this appeal is taken.Rogers & Mann and Quarles, Spence & Quarles, for appellant.

Winkler, Flanders, Smith, Bottum & Vilas, for respondent.

NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).

The decisive question in this case is whether the evidence shows that the plaintiff owns the cause of action on which the suit is founded. This depends on the other question whether, in...