22 Minn. 287 | Minn. | 1875
Assuming that the referee erred in refusing to dismiss the action at the close of plaintiff’s testimony, on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to maintain and establish the alleged cause or causes of action, this error was cured if, in the subsequent progress of the trial, sufficient competent evidence was introduced to supply such deficiency. The question then arises whether, upon the whole case, there is such a want of evidence in respect to any material fact found by the referee as will warrant this court in disturbing the finding on that ground.
• The real turning-point in the controversy is upon a question of fraud charged against defendants, which is made the
In case the fraud charged in either of the counts in plaintiff’s complaint is sufficiently substantiated by the evidence to support the finding of the referee in that respect, the plaintiff is entitled to have the alleged settlement and
In respect to the first' count there is some evidence reasonably tending to sustain the finding of the referee in regard to the allegations of fraud therein set forth, and sufficient in our judgment, under the rule laid down in Humphrey v. Havens, 12 Minn. 298, to preclude this court from setting it aside as not supported by the evidence. Although it is true, as urged by defendants, that fraud is never to be presumed, but must be proved, yet this rule does not require direct, positive proof in all cases, but is satisfied if the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged fraudulent transaction are such as reasonably point to the conclusion that a fraud was intended and actually perpetrated; and, when such facts and circumstances exist, their force and effect in determining the question is a matter peculiarly within the province of the referee to settle and decide.
If plaintiff’s testimony is to be believed — and of its credibility the referee was the sole judge — the alleged dissolution and settlement, which resulted in his selling out to the defendants and withdrawing from the firm, was based upon an agreement whereby he was to accept, and the defendants were to convey to him, for his interest in the firm property and good-will, one-ninth part of its assets, exclusive of debts and liabilities, according to their appraised value; that in carrying out this agreement he was induced by the representations of Walker and Samuel Judd to believe that a certain exhibit, produced by them as an exhibit of the firm assets, contained a full and correct statement in amount and value of the entire aggregate assets and liabilities of the firm; and that, so believing, he ascertained therefrom the value of his one-ninth share, and selected and
It is strongly insisted by the counsel for defendants, and with much show of reason, that plaintiff had no right to rely upon the alleged false and fraudulent representations, because his means of knowing or ascertaining their truth or falsity were equal to those of the defendants, inasmuch as they concerned the character and contents of a written instrument then before him, which explained itself. If this were true, and plaintiff was not induced to forego an examination of the exhibit by any artifice or statement of the defendants, then undoubtedly an omission to make use of the means of information at command would furnish a complete answer to any claim for damages on his part. In its heading the exhibit purports to be a schedule or inventory of the entire “ assets of the firm of Judd, Walker & Co., Marine, Minn., Sept. 1st, 1858,” as well as its liabilities. This in itself was calculated to mislead and deceive.
On the trial plaintiff testified in his own behalf as to the making.of the alleged representations, and to facts tending to show that he acted upon them in the belief that they were true. The following question was then put to him by his counsel, and allowed by the court, against defendants’ objection: “Did you rely upon ‘Exhibit A,’ and the representations you have detailed in evidence, in arriving at the amount of your share, and in making the agreement you refer to?” To this he answered, “Yes.” The ruling of the court upon this question is now alleged as error on the ground ‘ ‘ that it called for the mental operations of the witness, and made him the arbiter in his own case.”
Whether the plaintiff believed in the correctness of the exhibit as represented, and relied upon it and the truth of the representations, were material facts to be proved. They were matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the witness, and he was best able to testify truly in regard to them. The difficulty of contradicting such testimony, if false, and the consideration that it often, as in this ease, enables a party to swear directly to the existence of a fact which the jury is called upon to determine, furnish very strong reasons why such evidence should be scrutinized with great care and caution, but do not affect the question of its competency. The better rule, in our judgment, and the one supported by the weight of modern authority, is this: Whenever the motive, belief, or intention of any person is a material fact to be proved under the issue on trial, it is competent to prove it by the direct testimony of such person, whether he happens to be a party to the action or not. Edwards v. Currier, 43 Me. 474 ; Wheelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11; Watkins v. Wallace., 19 Mich. 57 ; Seymour v. Wilson, 14 N. Y.
One A. S. Parker, who was one of the members of the-firm of Judd, Walker & Co., and participated in the proceedings connected with the settlement and dissolution,, testified in behalf of plaintiff that during the negotiations-between plaintiff and the defendants similar negotiations were being carried on between him and the defendants, and that he (witness) “ was also about selling out, and making arrangements so to do ; ” that during such his negotiations, and, as he thinks, only a day prior to the time when plaintiff sold out, the said “Exhibit A ivas shown him by George B. Judd, in the pi’esence of Walker,” and also, as he thinks, Albert Judd, and that “ they (George B. Judd and Walker) then told him that it was an exhibit of the liabilities and assets of the company.” This testimony was also received under defendants’ objection, and is now assigned as error.
The rule in regard to the admissibility of proof of contemporaneous transactions of a similar character, for the purpose of showing the intention of a party in a particular transaction, is fully considered and discussed by the court in Jordan v. Osgood, 109 Mass. 457, and is there well stated as follows (p. 461): “ Another act of fraud is admissible to prove the fraud charged whenever there is evidence that the two are parts of one scheme or plan of fraud, committed in pursuance of a common purpose.” Under this-rule the testimony in question was clearly competent, as-tending to prove a common purpose on the part of defendants to defraud both the plaintiff and witness by means of
The enquiries addressed to the plaintiff in regard to the time when he first learned of the existence of the conveyance to Greeley & Ludden, and the circumstances under which he obtained the knowledge, were properly allowed. The record of these deeds was only constructive notice of their existence and contents. The object of the enquiries was to show when actual notice was first received, as that was the time when the statute of limitations commenced to run.
Plaintiff’s testimony, showing the extent of his examination of the yearly inventories of the Judd & Leeds assets and of the company’s books of accounts, bore directly upon the question of his actual knowledge of the condition of the affairs of the company, and whether, in fact, he relied upon, or was deceived by, the alleged fraudulent representation — both material questions for the consideration of the referee.
What was meant by witness Leeds, in his deposition concerning the assets of Judd & Leeds, their nature, etc., was a matter solely for the consideration of the referee, uninfluenced bj7 the opinion of any other witness as to his probable meaning, and hence the offer to explain any portion of his testimony by witness Wilkie was properly refused, and the same is true as to the sense in which Leeds used the words “petty ledger.”
Regarding the other questions raised upon the rulings of the referee upon the admissibility of evidence, no error is discovered in any way affecting the merits of the controversy, or justifying a new trial.
As to the alleged defect of parties, defendants are the-
Upon the withdrawal of plaintiff and Parker from the ■firm, the two Judds and Walker, having by their purchases become possessed of its entire effects and assets, and succeeded to all its rights, liabilities and obligations, continued the partnership business in the same name, under the same articles of copartnership,- and subject to its provisions and terms in all respects, save that each had a third interest in the reorganized firm. Under these circumstances no good reason is perceived why the personal representatives of Albert H. Judd, since deceased, should be joined-as defendants herein. By the joint fraudulent act of all its members the new firm has become wrongfully possessed of property equitably belonging to plaintiff under his agreement with them, has knowingly converted the same to its own use and benefit, and should be held responsible therefor.
It is claimed by the defendants that the report is erroneous in so far as it is based upon the assumption that no
The language employed in the- power of attorney to-designate the property to which it was intended to relate is as follows : “ All such lands, tenements, hereditaments and real estate whatever, either in the state of Wisconsin or-situate in the territory of Wisconsin, to or in which we ” (the said principals) “ are, or may be, in any way entitled or-interested,” and “ all such lands * * * and real estate belonging to, or that may belong ,tous.” This clearly referred, not only to real estate then belonging to the principals, but to such as they might at any time thereafter acquire. In reference to the second point, it is recited in the body of the deed (Exhibit C) that it is an “ indenture between Albert H. Judd” and others therein named a-s principals, ‘ ‘ by their attorney in fact, Orange Walker, and Orange-Walker, parties of the first part,” and the said Greeley &, Ludden of the second part. The deed purports to be signed and sealed by said first parties as follows : “In testimony whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto-
set their hands and seals,” etc.
“ Albert H. Judd,
Caroline Judd,
Asa Parker,
Geo. B. Judd,
Mary Ann M. Judd,
Hiram Berkey,
Georgiana E. Walker, _
Orange Walker.
As respects the execution of a deed by an attorney in fact, although it is usual and better for him to sign the name of his principal, and to add thereto his own signature, with proper words indicating that the act is done by him as such attorney, yet it is not in all cases necessary that he should so append his own name. When the deed on its face purports to be the indenture of the principal, made by his attorney in fact therein designated by name, it may be properly executed by such attorney by his subscribing and affixing thereto the name and seal of his principal alone. Devinney v. Reynolds, 1 Watts & Serg. 328; Forsyth v. Ray, 41 Me. 382. In this case the deed ¡purports on its face to be the indenture of the principals, and not that of the agent. It fully discloses that it was made for them and in their name by their attorney in fact, Orange Walker, who had full authority so to do. Its execution was properly acknowledged by him as such attorney in fact, and for and on behalf of his said principals. The neglect to sign his own name to the words “ by their attorney in fact” was a purely technical omission, devoid of any legal effect whatever.
Order affirmed.