Wade v. Ringo

• Decision Date: 28 May 1894
• Citation: 25 S.W. 901,122 Mo. 322
• Parties: Wade, Appellant, v. Ringo
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

25 S.W. 901

122 Mo. 322

Wade, Appellant, v. Ringo

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

May 28, 1894

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge.

This is a suit in equity to set aside a contract for fraud, etc., in which the trial court, after a full hearing, rendered a decree dismissing the bill on the merits. From that decree the plaintiff appealed in due form.

In rendering judgment on the circuit the trial judge, Hon. E. M Hughes, delivered the following opinion:

"The object of this suit is to rescind and set aside a written contract between plaintiff and defendant, in which plaintiff transfers and sells to defendant a stock of furniture and other goods for and in consideration of an undivided one-half interest of defendant in an invention known as the Ringo folding bed and the letters patent applied for. The facts alleged by plaintiff in his petition why this contract should be set aside are as follows:

"First. That in the negotiations the defendant, for the fraudulent of purpose inducing plaintiff to buy of him his interest in said pretended invention, represented to plaintiff that his said Ringo folding bed was, and is, constructed and supposed to be constructed as to its general and main parts like the said Windsor folding bed and Andrews folding bed, to stand up like a clothes press when not in use, with a movable front constituting the bedstead, secured in an outside frame work and about of the same size as the folding beds aforesaid operates with weights; about six feet, eight inches high four feet broad and about twenty-five to twenty-seven inches deep from front to rear at the base; which said Ringo folding bed was designed, as so represented by him, to entirely dispense with said weights and instead thereof (for the purpose of counteracting and balancing the weight of the folding part of said bedstead, bed spring, mattress, bedding, comforts, blankets, etc., usually used, together with a looking-glass of any size desired,) two spiral or coiled springs are to be used, the upper end of each of said springs fastened into a cross beam and the lower end of each of said springs so connected with the back and rear end of an iron circular track, that rollers secured to the bottom end of the folding part of said bed may, in unfolding and letting down of the bed, roll backward on the top side of said tracks (which are circular on the top side) and as they roll back are designed to increase the tension on said spiral springs so as to cause the increasing leverage and weight of the bed in being unfolded and let down to be equalized by the power of said springs, and also to have legs about one foot long to hold up the end of the bed when let down, the whole object and supposed purpose of said supposed improvement being to reduce the weight of the folding bed, so that it may be easily moved about upon four roller castors, by the housekeeper with safety, decrease the cost of construction and lessen the costs and expenses of shipment and thus produce a market for the sale of said Ringo folding bed, so as to, in a large measure, take the place of other folding beds in common use and become a source of profit to the owner thereof.

"Second. Defendant further represented that he had applied for a patent for his pretended invention in the patent office of the United States, and that his application therefor was still pending and undetermined.

"Third. Defendant, intending to wrong, cheat and defraud the plaintiff out of his said stock of goods and property, knowingly, fraudulently and deceitfully represented to plaintiff, that the said pretended invention was such an improvement on such other folding beds in common use, that all said weights used in them for balancing and overcoming the necessary leverage power, (of the bed in letting down and closing up) could and would be dispensed with, by the use of his springs, tracks and rollers, and that said springs, tracks and rollers would completely and fully do and perform all necessary work and supply the place of such weights above named, in counteracting the weight and leverage of the bed and furnishings above named as necessary and usual, while being let down and unfolded for use, and in being folded up when not in use, and that said bed should and would be built of substantially the same kind, quality and dimensions of lumber and materials as used in said other folding beds, and further represented that the 'down pull' of his said springs would equal the 'down pull' of the folding part of said bed when being opened for use, and further represented that his said bed would not, when being so opened, which statement defendant did not know to be true, and in fact was not true, and might with perfect safety have any amount of weight added upon the bed part even to the extent of one thousand pounds and that it would not fall or tip over in use, because, as he falsely and fraudulently stated, that the 'down pull' of his said springs in the rear would still counteract and overcome the 'down pull' of the bed and weights in the front so it could not fall over.

"These are the representations as alleged by plaintiff which induced him 'to enter into a written contract for the exchange of the plaintiff's said property for the said supposed invention of defendant and his beds, etc. on hand.' The plaintiff further alleges that all the said representations were false, and known by defendant to be false at the time, and defendant in truth and fact well knew at the time:

"First. That when said Ringo folding bed should be made of the same size and material of other beds with his springs, rollers and tracks and without weights, that it would not, and could not, operate the ordinary weight of front with any kind of beds and bedding thereon, nor would it operate with as much weight as an ordinary bed must carry necessarily and when so built of the ordinary weight and dimensions, that it would fall and tip over in operation with or without any bed furnishings upon it; and second, that it was a dangerous and worthless deadfall and could not safely be used as a bed.

"Fraud is the ground of the action, and the representations as above recited, alleged to have been made before the written contract was entered into, are the means through which plaintiff was induced to make the contract.

"If these representations were made by defendant to plaintiff and were, or any of them, material to the contract afterwards made and were relied on by plaintiff as true, when in fact they were false, then the contract should not stand. But if defendant did not make such representations or any of them, or notwithstanding defendant made them, the plaintiff relied on his own judgment, or they were not material to the contract or were not false, then the contract should stand. Courts do not undertake to make contracts for parties, they make them for themselves, voluntarily impose their own burdens whether light or heavy to bear, and when freely and fairly assumed courts will leave them to the consequences of their own judgment, whether wisely or foolishly exercised. It is only where fraud, accident or mistake is present that courts can undertake to cancel a contract and that upon the theory that the so-called contract is really no contract at all, the minds of the parties never having freely and fairly met upon the proposition. Fraudulent representations in order to afford a ground for relief, must be of facts which then existed or had existed in distinction from an opinion, a promise or an assumed future fact.

"The first series of representations the plaintiff charges defendant made, it will be observed, consist in a description of the bed, together with an opinion of the defendant as to the value and future popularity of the same, resulting from the substitution of springs for weights. The second, is an allegation, of a pre-existing fact, -- that the defendant had applied for a patent for his invention, and that his application was then pending and undetermined -- and this, if false, was certainly material and should warrant the cancellation of the contract. The third in the beginning states the opinion (for it can't be anything else) of the defendant that his invention was such an improvement on folding beds as would dispense with the use of weights, and next as to the materials and dimensions of the bed, and then that the 'down pull' of the springs would equal the 'down pull' of the folding part of the bed...