Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. Lien
| Citation | 204 N.W. 950,164 Minn. 307 |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 24724.,24724. |
| Parties | WELLS-DICKEY TRUST CO. v. LIEN et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Appeal from District Court, Bigstone County; Stephen A. Flaherty, Judge.
Suit by Cora M. Cootey against Andrew D. O'Brien. On the death of both parties before trial, the Wells-Dickey Trust Company, as executor, was substituted as plaintiff, and Lewis A. Lien and another, as executors, were substituted as defendants. Judgment dismissing the action, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Murphy & Johansen, of Wheaton, for appellant.
Cliff & Purcell, of Ortonville, D. J. Leary, of Browns Valley, E. H. Grady, of Portage, Wis., for respondents.
This action was brought by Cora M. Cootey against Andrew D. O'Brien to rescind the purchase of an undivided one-third interest in a tract of 3,050 acres of Montana land and to recover the purchase price of $9,000 paid therefor. Both parties died before the trial of the action, and the representative of their respective estates were substituted in their stead. For convenience we shall use the terms plaintiff and defendant, whether referring to the original parties or to the present parties.
The Cootey family and the O'Brien family were intimate friends. The Cooteys resided in Minneapolis; the O'Briens at Graceville. Mr. O'Brien was president of the Graceville State Bank and also the president and managing officer of the O'Brien Land Company, and a man of large experience in the land and banking business, and a successful dealer in lands and securities. Mr. Cootey died in April, 1911, leaving a will in which he named Mr. O'Brien as coexecutor with his wife. The business affairs of the estate were apparently managed mainly by Mr. O'Brien during the period of administration. The probate proceedings were completed, and the estate closed in 1913, at which time a considerable amount of property passed to Mrs. Cootey, part of which was in the form of farm mortgages and money. Thereafter a considerable part of her money was invested for her in farm mortgages by Mr. O'Brien, either personally or through the bank or land company of which he was president.
The complaint, in substance, alleges, among others things, that in August, 1917, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he had an opportunity to purchase 3,000 acres of land in the state of Montana; that such purchase would require more money than he cared to invest at that time; that he was willing that she should take a one-third interest in the purchase on equal terms with him, which would require her to invest $9,000; that the land was worth a much larger sum, and could quickly be sold at a profit; that, relying upon such representations, and because of her full confidence in defendant, she agreed to purchase such one-third interest, and that defendant should use $9,000 of her money then in his hands to pay for it; that plaintiff knew nothing about the land or its value; that in fact it was not worth over $5 per acre; that defendant did not purchase the land for a cash consideration, but without her knowledge exchanged some of his own property for it and retained her $9,000 himself; that he took title to the land in his own name and thereafter executed to her a deed of an undivided one-third interest in it; that immediately after learning that defendant had acquired the land in a trade, without parting with any money, she tendered a reconveyance of the interest conveyed to her and demanded the return of her $9,000; and that defendant refused to return it.
The answer admitted that defendant had acquired the land in exchange for other property, and had received from plaintiff $9,000 for the one-third interest therein which defendant had conveyed to her. It alleged that the property given in exchange for the land was of the value of $27,000, and that plaintiff made her purchase of her own volition, with full knowledge of all the facts. It put in issue all the allegations of the complaint not expressly admitted.
The trial court found all the issues in favor of defendant and directed judgment dismissing the action on the merits. Among other things, the court found that at the time of the transaction in question the reasonable cash market value of the land was in excess of the price paid for it by plaintiff; that plaintiff was a woman of experience in business matters, and managed her estate herself through such agencies as she selected; that, although plaintiff and defendant were on friendly terms, no confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between them; that the transaction in question was in no way induced or brought about by means of any such relationship; that there had been no violation of trust or confidence, nor exercise of improper influence by defendant; that defendant did not conceal any material facts or information in relation to the property, nor make any false or fraudulent statements or representations concerning it, but acted throughout in entire good faith, without taking or gaining any advantage or exercising any improper influence over plaintiff.
Plaintiff contends that the findings are not sustained by the evidence.
There is no evidence that defendant made any representations whatever concerning the Montana land, or its value, or the manner in which it was to be acquired or paid for. The record shows merely that the land was conveyed to defendant in exchange for other property by a deed dated November 3, 1917, pursuant to a contract dated July 28, 1917; that, pursuant to an oral agreement, apparently made in August, 1917, the terms of which are not disclosed, defendant, in accounting for the proceeds of certain mortgages which he had collected for plaintiff, charged her with the sum of $9,000 on account of the Montana land, and on the same date, January 29, 1918, gave her a receipt for $9,000 received for an undivided one-third interest in the Montana land, which receipt contained a description of the land and a statement that the title was in defendant and that he agreed to convey the above interest to plaintiff by warranty deed, free from incumbrance, at as early a date as possible; that these lands were incumbered by a mortgage which defendant paid; and that he conveyed the undivided one-third interest in the lands to plaintiff by a deed dated February 23, 1918.
The only attempt to spell out anything in the nature of representations on the part of defendant is based on a letter written to him by plaintiff's attorney on September 27, 1920. Defendant had been ill with tuberculosis for several years, and in the latter part of September, 1920, he went to Europe, where he remained for some months. He died shortly after his return to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial