77 Ind. 494 | Ind. | 1881
Action by Michael Cuson against Patrick Cagney. The complaint represented that, on the 11th day of March, 1879, and long prior thereto, the plaintiff was, and had been, a resident of the city of Chicago, in the State ■of Illinois, and was by vocation a boat-builder, without any knowledge of farming, or of farming implements, or other property used, or grown upon, a farm; that about ten days prior to that time the plaintiff was approached by one Watkins, of said city of Chicago, who represented himself to be an agent and attorney of the defendant, and who then and there proposed to exchange' certain lands belonging to the defendant, and situate in Starke county, in this State, together with some farming implements and other personal
Wherefore the plaintiff demanded one thousand dollars for his damages, and that the notes and mortgages executed by him to the defendant should be decreed to be fraudulent and void, and ordered to be cancelled, and all other proper relief.
Answer in general denial; trial by jury ; verdict for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $439.50, and finding that the mortgage ought to be reduced by that sum. The plaintiff remitted all the damages over $300, and the court thereupon, after denying a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment in his favor for the latter sum, ordering that the notes.
Error is assigned here upon the' alleged insufficiency of the complaint to sustain the proceedings below, and this assignment of error presents the first question we are required to consider.
As to fraudulent representations operating as an inducement to the sale or exchange of property, the following propositions ai’e deducible from the authorities:
First. That the purchaser has no right to rely upon the representations of the vendor as to the quality of the property, where he has a reasonable opportunity of examining the property and judging for himself as to its qualities.
Second. That inadequacy of consideration alone is no ground for inferring fraud, unless the inadequacy is so great as to impress every person with its grossness.
Third. That a purchaser has usually no right to rely upon affirmations of value made by the vendor, value being generally a mere matter of opinion, about which persons are liable to differ very widely. 1 Bigelow Fraud, chap.l, sec. 2 ; 6 Wait’s Actions and Defences, p. 818 ; Kennedy v. Richardson, 70 Ind. 524; Frenzel v. Miller, 37 Ind. 1.
The complaint in this case shows that the appellee had a suitable opportunity of examining both the lands and the personal property which he obtained by exchange from the appellant, and no sufficient reason is alleged for his failure to embrace that opportunity. Nothing is averred which necessarily prevented him from making such an examination if he had persisted in making it. In the next place, the complaint avers nothing from which a gross inadequacy in the consideration for the exchange can be inferred. Lastly, the gravamen of the complaint is made to rest upon the alleged misrepresentations of the appellant as to the value of the property exchanged by him with the appellee,
In our opinion, the complaint failed to make a cause of action against the appellant, and, for want of a sufficient complaint, the judgment will have to be reverssd.
The conclusions we have reached as to the insufficiency of the complaint render it unnecessary for us to consider some other questions reserved upon the evidence.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.