Williamson v. Harris

• Decision Date: 02 December 1912
• Parties: WILLIAMSON v. HARRIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

151 S.W. 500

167 Mo. A. 347

WILLIAMSON v. HARRIS.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 2, 1912.

1. FRAUD (§ 11) — FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS — MATTERS OF FACT OR OPINION.

Mere expressions of opinion, as distinguished from representations of existing facts, cannot be made the basis of an action for fraud.

2. FRAUD (§ 20) — FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS — RELIANCE.

To be actionable, the vendor's false representations as to the quality of land must relate to a material fact relied upon by the purchaser.

3. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (§ 36) — FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS — MATTERS OF FACT — QUALITY OF LAND.

Where a purchaser of land not acquainted with the character of the local soil told the vendor that he wanted a rich soil that would not need commercial fertilizer, that he would not buy a farm which required such fertilizer at any price, and that he would have to rely upon the vendor's honesty as to the character of the soil, the vendor's false representations that the soil was rich and did not require fertilizer, when in fact it was thin, and the vendor had used fertilizer upon it for a number of years and knew that a good crop could not be produced without it, were more than mere expressions of opinion, and were actionable as misrepresentations as to a material fact.

4. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (§ 45) — ACTION FOR PRICE — QUESTION FOR JURY — RELIANCE ON REPRESENTATIONS.

In an action for the price of land, defended on the ground of the vendor's fraudulent misrepresentations, held on the evidence that whether the purchaser relied upon such representations was for the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wright County; C. H. Skinker, Judge.

Action by H. G. Williamson against G. W. Harris. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

F. M. Mansfield, of Hartville, and Woodruff & Luster, of Springfield, for appellant. E. H. Farnsworth, of Mountain Grove, and Lamar, Lamar & Lamar, of Houston, for respondent.

COX, J.

Plaintiff sold defendant a farm in Wright county, and the parties entered into a written contract by which defendant agreed to and did deposit $1,000 in a bank to await the preparation of title papers and the execution of the deed by plaintiff. It was also agreed that on the completion of the terms of sale the $1,000 was to be paid to plaintiff as a part payment on the land; but, if plaintiff should comply with the requirements of the contract upon his part and defendant should refuse to comply, the $1,000 was to be paid to plaintiff as liquidated damages. As appears from the record before us, no question was made that plaintiff had not complied with the terms of the contract; but defendant refused to take the land, and alleged as reason therefor that fraud had been practiced upon him in the sale. The plaintiff brought suit for the $1,000, and defendant sought to justify his refusal to take the land by alleging that he was induced to enter into the contract by fraud of the following character:

That defendant was a stranger in that section of the country and wholly unfamiliar with the character or productiveness of the soil, and that he told plaintiff and his agent with whom he dealt that he wanted a good rich soil that would produce a good crop without the use of commercial fertilizer and that he would not purchase a farm which required the use of such fertilizer at any price, and also told plaintiff that he was not familiar with the character of the soil in that locality but would have to rely upon his honesty to tell him the truth in regard to the character, quality, and fertility of the soil, and that p...