52 Iowa 222 | Iowa | 1879
Lead Opinion
It is objected by the defendant that these representations are, for the most part, mere matters of opinion, and besides that they are not proven by that clear preponderance of evidence which is necessary to justify a court of equity in canceling a contract on the ground of fraud. The rule of law, that fraud will hot be deemed proven unless the evidence is satisfactory, is a familiar one. Bryan v. Hitchcock, 43 Mo., 527; Christmas v. Spink, 15 Ohio, 600; Stine v. Skerk., 1 Watts and S., 195. So, too, the rule which in general excludes evidence of representations which are mere expressions of opinion, is equally well established. Ellis v. Andrews, 56 N. Y., 85; Parker v. Moulton, 114 Mass., 99; Bondurant v. Crawford, 22 Iowa, 40 (47); Longshore v. Jack & Co., 30 Iowa, 298. Tested by these rules, it appears to us that the fraud is not made out. The plaintiff testifies that the defendant said that the land was good, whereas, it was not. Without holding that there might not be cases where a false representation of this kind would entitle a person misled by it to equitable relief, we have to-
As to the alleged representation that the land lay as well, or was about such land, as the farm on which the defendant resides,
In this connection we may say that there is no point upon which we feel justified in holding that there is a clear preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff, except as to the value of the land. The plaintiff testifies that the defendant said it was worth $12 an acre. He is corroborated by two witnesses. The defendant denies it, and is corroborated by only one. Of course a statement of value is an opinion, and we see nothing in the case to take it out of the ordinary rule, that whoever relies upon the opinion of another does it at his peril. But further than that, we cannot think that if such statement was made the plaintiff' believed it. The defendant at the time of the trade had just been to Crawford county to .see his land. After the- trade was proposed he examined the 2}laintiff’s farm, and consented to give him $100 in exchange. The farm is variously estimated, by some as low as $15 per acre, and by others as high as $35 per acre. If the Crawford county land had been worth $12 per acre, the defendant would have paid for the farm more than the highest estimate fixed by any witness, and from $1,200 to $1,500 more than the evidence in our opinion shows that it was worth. An average of the testimony will show the value of the farm to be not far from $3,000, or $25 per acre. But the only witnesses who show that they had dealt in real estate estimated it at from $15 to $20 per acre. The defendant, we think, obtained for his land in the exchange from $7.00 to $8.00 per acre. He made the trade knowing both tracts, as plaintiff well knew. It
The defendant says that he told the plaintiff that the land cost him $12 per acre. The plaintiff estimated his farm at $4,500. That sum it appears was inserted as the consideration in the deeds. But the defendant says that he told the plaintiff that neither piece of property would sell for any such amount of money. The plaintiff denies this, and perhaps it should not be regarded as proven, but we believe that the plaintiff knew that the farm would not sell for that much, and that he did not suppose that the land would sell for as much as it was estimated in the consideration.
We are of the opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court should be
Reversed.
Rehearing
ON REHEARING.
Upon a petition for rehearing we have given this case a careful reconsideration. We confess that the minds of some of us were, upon the original argument, as well as upon the rehearing, strongly inclined to sustain the decree of the court below. But this disposition, we must frankly say, resulted from the conclusion, readily reached, that plaintiff made a bad bargain and is really a loser in the transaction. Upon a closer study of the case, we fail to discover that the foregoing opinion does not fairly and fully present the facts and the law applicable thereto. It is now our deliberate judgment that the testimony fails to disclose a case of fraud and false representations authorizing the court to set aside the contract of the parties. The evidence is fairly and sufficiently discussed in the foregoing opinion.
It is urged in the petition for rehearing that the opinion misstates the pleadings, when it says that the representation that the land lay as well as another farm is not averred in the petition. But if it should be admitted that the statement is erroneous, the opinion expressly holds that the allegation is not sustained by a preponderance of proof. The plaintiff* therefore, has had the benefit of the allegation.
Other parts of the petition for rehearing are devoted to a discussion of the evidence. It is quite unnecessary to say any more on this subject than has been said in the first opinion. We are content to rest the case upon what is there found. We adhere to the conclusions heretofore reached, and still think the decree of the court below ought to be reversed. .