Wolfcale v. Farrar
| Decision Date | 11 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 11,701 |
| Citation | 141 N.E. 63,80 Ind.App. 380 |
| Parties | WOLFCALE v. FARRAR ET AL |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Wells Circuit Court; Frank W. Gordon, Judge.
Affirmed.
A. W Hamilton and Fred A. Wiecking, for appellant.
Fred H Bowers, Milo Feightner, Lee M. Bowers, Abram Simmons, Charles Dailey and Virgil Simmons, for appellees.
This is a vacation appeal from the Wells Circuit Court. The appellee Chase Farrar brought this action in the Wells Circuit Court seeking to obtain damages against the appellant and his wife, Cora E. Wolfcale, on account of alleged misrepresentation in the sale of a farm, by appellant and wife to the appellee Farrar. The issues being joined the cause was submitted to the court for trial and resulted in a finding and judgment against the appellant.
The only alleged error presented by appellant in his brief is the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for a new trial. While various causes are stated in said motion, the only matter presented by appellant relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court.
It appears from the record that the appellee Farrar in July, 1919, purchased of the appellant a farm in Wells county, Indiana. This action was brought to recover damages for alleged fraud and deceit practiced upon appellant in the sale of said farm. The complaint charges that said appellant, knowingly and falsely, and with intent to cheat and defraud said Farrar, told and represented to him that said farm contained fifty-three acres, when in truth and in fact said farm contained only fifty acres, as the appellant well knew, etc.
In determining whether the decision of the trial court is sustained by sufficient evidence, in cases of this character, this court can look only to the evidence favorable to the appellee. Reitz v. Hodgkins (1916), 185 Ind. 163, 112 N.E. 386.
An examination of the record discloses that the appellant purchased the farm in 1917, under a written contract with the then owner, which contract described the farm as containing fifty acres. John Hawk, from whom appellant purchased said farm testified as a witness on the trial of this case. He testified that he told the appellant, at the time he sold him said farm, that while his, Hawk's, deed from one Markley called for 52.95 acres, yet, there were only fifty acres in the farm and that because of the shortage Markley had to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial