Wood v. Roeder

• Decision Date: 03 February 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 21,50 Neb. 476
• Parties: WOOD v. ROEDER.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

50 Neb. 476

70 N.W. 21

WOOD

v.ROEDER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Feb. 3, 1897.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As a general rule, a misrepresentation which embodies matter of law is one upon which a party cannot rely, as all parties are presumed or bound to know the law; but where it is as to the law of another state, or its effect, it is not within the rule, and may be fraudulent; and ignorance of the law may be pleaded by the one to whom the misrepresentation is made.

2. Where a warrant issued by a county of one state is purchased in another state, in reliance upon a misrepresentation in respect to the statute of limitations as applicable to the warrant, and, on presentation and demand, payment of the warrant is refused, on the ground that it is not a claim which can be enforced, there arises a cause of action in favor of the purchaser, and against the party who sold the warrant, and made the misrepresentation.

3. The evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdict rendered.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Keysor, Judge.

Action by Max L. Roeder against Benjamin B. Wood. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.Geo. E. Pritchett, for plaintiff in error.

Winfield S. Strawn, for defendant in error.

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, Colo., in the expressed sum of $454.01, and interest thereon at 10 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...