Wood v. Roeder

• Decision Date: 03 February 1897
• Docket Number: 6867
• Citation: 70 N.W. 21,50 Neb. 476
• Parties: BEN B. WOOD v. MAX L. ROEDER
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

70 N.W. 21

50 Neb. 476

BEN B. WOOD v. MAX L. ROEDER

No. 6867

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 3, 1897

ERROR from the district court of Douglas county. Tried below before KEYSOR, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

George E. Pritchett, for plaintiff in error.

Winfield S. Strawn, contra.

OPINION

HARRISON, J.

The defendant in error instituted this action in the district court of Douglas county to recover of plaintiff in error alleging in substance in his petition that in the course of certain business transactions had with the plaintiff on or about October 6, 1887, he purchased a county warrant, or order, purported to have been issued by the proper officers of Lake county, Colorado, in the express sum of $ 454.01 and interest thereon at ten per centum per annum from August 18 1880, the date of its presentation for payment to the county treasurer, and its nonpayment for want of funds; that the defendant in error gave for the warrant its face value at the time of his purchase, viz. $ 778.80; that to induce the purchase of said warrant the plaintiff in error "falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that said warrant was the existing legal and binding obligation of the said Lake county, in the state of Colorado; and, referring to the value of the said warrant, also verbally stated that the said warrant was good and would certainly be paid in full by the county issuing the same, only that said county was a little slow; that as plaintiff was necessarily making some investments, the said warrant would be a good and safe investment for the plaintiff.

"(3.) That having no other knowledge of said warrant than that derived from defendant's said representations, and confiding in and wholly relying on the correctness thereof and believing the same to be true, plaintiff took the said warrant of said defendant and gave as consideration therefor the sum of $ 778.80, which then and there passed from plaintiff to defendant.

"(4.) That said warrant was not a legal existing and binding obligation of the said Lake county; that the said warrant was not good and would not then, or for a long time prior thereto, be paid by the said county, and was not a safe investment; but was then and for a long time prior thereto had been fully barred by the statute of limitations of the state of Colorado, and the obligation of said county to pay the same repudiated on that account, and that payment of the said warrant had been refused--all of which the defendant at the time of making such false representations well knew."

In the answer the plaintiff in error admitted the ownership of the warrant as stated in the petition, and alleged that the defendant in error, as agent for a life insurance company, solicited the plaintiff in error to insure his life with such company, which plaintiff in error did on condition that the company would accept the said county warrant as a part of the consideration for the insurance, and that the company, by its agent, the defendant in error, acceded to the condition and received the warrant and $ 190.94 in cash, and issued to plaintiff in error a policy of life insurance; and further:

"That some time after said bargain or trade had been consummated and executed, the plaintiff tendered back to this defendant said warrant and demanded the face value thereof and interest of this defendant, in cash, with which demand this defendant refused to comply, but proposed to the plaintiff that if said company, his principal, or himself, was dissatisfied with the trade, said warrant and money should be returned to him, and he would deliver up said policy of insurance, and that such proposition was rejected by ...