Werline v. Aldred
| Decision Date | 25 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 6689. |
| Citation | 157 P. 305,57 Okla. 391,1916 OK 490 |
| Parties | WERLINE v. ALDRED. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A representation as to value is usually regarded as an expression of opinion, but where made by one as an inducement to another, who is ignorant thereof, to enter into a contract and is relied upon to the detriment of the latter, the same may be made the basis of an action for fraud and misrepresentation.
One induced by fraudulent and false representations to exchange property may affirm the contract, retain that which he has received, and bring an action at law to recover the damages sustained by reason of his reliance upon the fraudulent representations.
The measure of damages in such cases is the difference in value between the property conveyed to him and the value same would have had had it been as represented.
One who relies upon a material representation which is false is not precluded from recovering damages by reason of the fact that he had the opportunity to investigate for himself and did not do so.
Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 3. Error from District Court, Woodward County; James W. Steen, Judge.
Action by Salmon C. Aldred against George M. Werline. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
C. W Herod, of Woodward, for plaintiff in error.
Chas Swindall, of Woodward, for defendant in error.
Under the authority of Holmberg v. Will, 152 P. 357, the motion to dismiss is denied.
In 1911, defendant in error, Salmon C. Aldred, was the owner of a farm in Woodward county of the approximate value of $3,500 which was mortgaged for about $1,260, the interest upon which was due. Aldred was in dire circumstances and was about to lose his farm because he could not pay the interest, and was also financially embarrassed otherwise, and was in a distressing condition. This fact was known to plaintiff in error, George M. Werline, and his agent, one Dockum, who resided near him, and a proposition was finally made to Aldred to trade his farm for some business property in Wheeling, a small town in the state of Missouri of about 400 inhabitants. The proof discloses that this Missouri property was mortgaged for $700. Each of the parties to the transaction was to assume the mortgage on the property traded for. The representations made to Aldred were that the property in Missouri was worth $3,500, or more and had a rental value of $30 or $35 per month. Relying upon said representations he made the trade, and thereafter discovered that the property in Missouri was worthless, and that the mortgage of $700, which he was to assume, was more than the value of the property, and instead of the property having a rental value of $35 per month, it had none in its condition and he also ascertained that the condition of the property as to improvements was not as represented. Thereupon Aldred sued Werline to recover a judgment for the difference between the actual value of the property and that which it would have been worth had it been as represented. The cause was tried to a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for $2,377.75.
The verdict of the jury is supported by the evidence, for this record amply demonstrates that plaintiff, owing to his physical and financial condition, was at the mercy of defendant and his agent Dockum, and that they took advantage of him at every opportunity. Plaintiff was nearsighted and relied upon defendant and Dockum to fully inform him as to the value of the Missouri property. And, as they were neighbors, he had reason to believe they would not misrepresent to him. In this he was mistaken. Plaintiff was not acquainted in Missouri, nor was he conversant with values, and his only method of ascertaining and the only thing done by him to find the value was to write to a man recommended by those who were then taking advantage of him. And this man in Missouri did not reveal the true fact to him, but concealed the truth.
While the question of value may be an expression of opinion, yet when made by a party to a contract as an inducement to cause another, who is ignorant of values, to make the same, and is relied upon to the latter's disadvantage, a cause of action may be maintained for damages for misrepresentation. And especially is this true when one of the parties to the contract has never seen the property and has no opportunity to do so, but relies upon the statements of the other as to value.
As stated, many representations were made by Werline, and his agent Dockum to Aldred in order to consummate the trade, and Werline is bound by the statements of his agent, for the same were made within the scope of his authority.
In Howe v. Martin, 23 Okl. 561, 102 P. 128, 138 Am. St. Rep. 840, this court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial