Wolfe v. Pugh

Decision Date22 April 1885
Docket Number10,480
Citation101 Ind. 293
PartiesWolfe v. Pugh, Administratrix
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Sullivan Circuit Court.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

J. T Hays, H. J. Hays, S. Coulson, T. J. Wolfe and J. M Humphreys, for appellant.

J. C Briggs, G. W. Buff, J. B. Patten, C. E. Barrett and J. T. Beasley, for appellee.

OPINION

Zollars, C. J.

Charles E. Pugh was the plaintiff below, and based his action on the ground that he had been defrauded in a land transaction. Subsequent to this appeal Pugh died, and his administratrix has been substituted as appellee. The complaint may be epitomized as follows: Charles E. Pugh, a young man, inexperienced in business, owned two tracts of land in Sullivan county, and was offering to sell an eighty-seven-acre tract, worth $ 2,000, so as to be enabled to pay off a mortgage upon the other tract. Knowing this, appellant, John E. Osborn, and Jesse Trueblood, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding Pugh out of his eighty-seven-acre tract, conspired and confederated together, and falsely, fraudulently and knowingly represented to him that appellant Wolfe was the owner of eighty acres of land in Crawford county, Illinois, five and one-half miles southwest of Robinson, the county seat of the county, which was good tillable land, with good and valuable improvements thereon, and worth $ 1,500. As a part of the conspiracy, and in furtherance of it, they proposed to Pugh that Wolfe would take his land and therefor give him the Illinois land and $ 500 in cash. Osborn, with the full knowledge of Wolfe, represented to Pugh that he knew a man, Trueblood, who would purchase from him the Illinois land at $ 1,150 cash so soon as the trade between Wolfe and Pugh should be consummated. Trueblood represented to Pugh that he knew of the Illinois land, as he had a brother who owned and lived upon an adjoining tract, and that so soon as Pugh should become the owner of the land, he, Trueblood, would give him $ 1,150 for it, and upon Pugh consenting, Trueblood gave to him a watch to bind the bargain. They also represented to Pugh that Wolfe wanted his land so as to exchange it for property nearer to him; that he had made a contract with one James McKee to take the land, and that to save the expense of two deeds Pugh and wife should make a deed direct to McKee. They also stated that Wolfe would execute a deed to Pugh for the Illinois land, and leave it with the county recorder to be delivered so soon as they could perfect the trade with McKee, and he paid the $ 700 "boot money" under their agreement with him, and that when McKee should have paid this money, the deed should be delivered to Pugh, and the $ 500 cash should be paid to him, and that Pugh could then complete his sale to Trueblood, and get from him the $ 1,150 for the Illinois land. Pugh and wife executed their deed, conveying the land to McKee, and delivered it to Wolfe. Shortly after this the deed for the Illinois land was delivered to Pugh, and the $ 500 was paid to him by Wolfe. Pugh was ignorant of the quality, location and value of the Illinois land, and relied upon the representations of the other parties as to its quality, value and location, and relied upon Trueblood taking it from him at $ 1,150. All of their representations concerning the land were false and fraudulent, and known by the defendants to be such. Wolfe did not own land in Crawford county within five and one-half miles of Robinson. He owned eighty acres in Lawrence county, Illinois, which was not and is not tillable for any purpose, but, on the other hand, is swamp land, without any kind of improvements upon it, and is not, and was not, worth over $ 80. Of all this Pugh was ignorant until after the exchange was consummated and the deeds had been delivered. Upon an examination of his deed from Wolfe he learned for the first time that the land was not in Crawford county, and still subsequent to this he learned of the other frauds practiced upon him. He also learned for the first time, after the trade was consummated and the deeds passed, that Trueblood was financially worthless, and that his proposition to purchase the Illinois land was but a trick, in furtherance of the conspiracy to cheat him out of his land in this State. Upon learning of these frauds, Pugh tendered to Wolfe the $ 500, a deed of reconveyance of the Illinois land, and demanded a deed for the land conveyed to McKee.

This complaint clearly states a case in favor of Pugh. As to the Illinois land, the representations were not simply as to its value; they went further, and stated those things upon which value rests. The land was represented as being good, tillable land, with valuable improvements thereon, and situated within five and one-half miles of the county seat. It is averred that all of these representations were false and fraudulent, and known by the parties to be so; that the land was not thus situated, but was many miles away in another county; that the land was not tillable for any purpose, was swamp land, without any kind of improvements, and hence almost wholly worthless. The part taken by Trueblood was well calculated to assist in misleading a man inexperienced in business affairs, impress him with the desirability of the trade, and turn him aside from going and making a personal inspection of the land for himself. But under the circumstances as detailed in the complaint, Pugh was not bound to go into another State and inspect the land. The parties, having represented to him the location and quality of the land, and the extent of the improvements, and thus gotten from him a valuable farm for almost nothing, can not turn upon him now, admit all of this falsehood and fraud, and, in refusing to make reparation, charge him with carelessness in accepting as true what they, by asseveration and device, sought to impress upon him as true. It does not lie with them to say that because he trusted to their word, instead of suspecting them of falsehood, they are entitled to the fruits of their falsehood, and he is without remedy. This is well settled by authority. West v. Wright, 98 Ind. 335, and cases there cited.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. The complaint, as will be observed, was filed against Wolfe, Osborn and Trueblood. Trueblood was defaulted. No further notice seems to have been taken of him in the subsequent proceedings. Osborn was not found. The case proceeded to trial and judgment against Wolfe alone.

He assigns as error here the overruling of his motion for a new trial, and under that assignment argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment, and that the trial court erred in the admission of certain testimony, and in giving and refusing certain instructions.

The plaintiff, Pugh, was a witness, and detailed the transaction, in substance, as follows: When in Sullivan, on the 4th day of April, 1881, he met and had a conversation with John E. Osborn on the street; being asked by Osborn whether he would sell his land, he answered that in order to get money to pay off a mortgage upon another tract, he would sell it for $ 1,700 cash; Osborn said that he had eighty acres of land in Illinois to sell for appellant, Wolfe, and upon being asked by Pugh as to its location, said that it was five and one-half miles southwest of Robinson, in Crawford county; that it was high, rolling prairie, and as good land as a "crow ever flew over," and worth eighteen hundred dollars; that the fences upon it had been burned; that he knew a man by the name of Trueblood, who had sold land for $ 1,200, and wished to buy land in Crawford county, Illinois, and that Pugh, if he became the owner of Wolfe's land, could sell it to Trueblood for $ 1,200 cash; that he, Osborn, would see Trueblood for him, Pugh, about the matter, and that if he, Pugh, would come to Sullivan on the following Wednesday, he and Trueblood could go by rail to Robinson, get a "rig" there and go and see the Wolfe land. At that time, Pugh had never seen Trueblood. In the evening of the day on which this conversation was had, Pugh, at the request of Osborn, went with him to see Wolfe at his store. Pugh told Wolfe that Osborn had said that he, Wolfe, would exchange his land for Pugh's, and give to him as a difference, $ 500. Wolfe answered that he would do so; to go on and make the trade, and he would stand good for it; that he was busy in the store, and as a member of the grand jury, and had gotten Osborn to make the trade for him. Upon being asked by Wolfe, how long it would take him to decide as to the trade, Pugh answered that he would decide so soon as he could go and look at the Wolfe land, as he had a man to take it off his hands. And in answer to a question as to how they were going, Pugh answered that they would go by rail to Robinson, get a "rig" there and go and see the land. Wolfe then said, "Hurry up; if we trade, I want to do so and not fool about it," and then walked away.

On the following Wednesday evening, Pugh saw Wolfe at his store, and asked for Osborn. Wolfe answered that he had sent him to look at Pugh's farm and that he would return in a short time. On his way to the hotel Pugh met Osborn and Trueblood, and said to them that he and Trueblood would go and see the Wolfe land. Trueblood said that was of no use, as he had just come from the land, and knew all about it, and that he would give for it $ 1,000 in cash and his note for $ 150; that he wanted to keep $ 200 of the amount for which he had sold his land to build fences on the Wolfe land. He gave to Pugh a silver watch to bind the bargain, and said that to give time for Pugh to perfect his trade with Wolfe he would meet him on Saturday or Monday following, and close up the purchase. Pugh called on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Cohen v. Blank
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • December 4, 1986
    ...Improvement Co., 33 Ariz. 101, 261 P. 969 (1928); Colorado, Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo.App. 506, 50 P. 40 (1897); Indiana, Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293 (1885); Iowa, Ellison v. Stockton, 185 Iowa 979, 170 N.W. 435 (1919); Maine, Rhoda v. Annis, 75 Me. 17 (1883); New Hampshire, Concord Bank v.......
  • Aiello v. Ed Saxe Real Estate, Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1985
    ...Improvement Co., 33 Ariz. 101, 261 P. 969 (1928); Colorado, Mayo v. Wahlgreen, 9 Colo.App. 506, 50 P. 40 (1897); Indiana, Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293 (1885); Iowa, Ellison v. Stockton, 185 Iowa 979, 170 N.W. 435 (1919); Maine, Rhoda v. Annis, 75 Me. 17 (1883); New Hampshire, Concord Bank v.......
  • Citizens State Bank of Rugby, a Corp. v. Iverson
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1915
    ...315, 46 N.W. 940, 82 Mich. 336, 21 Am. St. Rep. 563, 47 N.W. 328; Griswold v. Gebbie, 126 Pa. 353, 12 Am. St. Rep. 878, 17 A. 673; Wolfe v. Pugh, 101 Ind. 293; Rhoda v. Annis, 75 Me. 17; 46 Am. Rep. Smalley v. Morris, 157 Pa. 349, 27 A. 734; Mechem, Agency, § 739; Comp. Laws 1913, § 3973; E......
  • Wolf v. Erwin & Wood Company
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1903
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT