180 Mich. 393 | Mich. | 1914
Relator asks for a writ of mandamus to be issued against respondent to compel him to set aside a certain order made by him as such circuit judge in a cause pending in said court, wherein relator is plaintiff and Fred A. Herreman is defend
This action by relator is brought against defendant to recover damages arising from fraud. The answer of respondent and the brief of his counsel in these mandamus proceedings admit that the statement of facts in relator’s brief is substantially correct. The charges of fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendant to relator in connection with the transactions hereinafter detailed are not contradicted. Counsel for respondent contend that the truth or falsity of such representations is absolutely immaterial. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary to state only such facts as may be required to show the fraudulent statements, to properly understand the questions involved, as follows: From the affidavits presented upon the application for the writ, and upon which it was allowed, it appears that relator was the owner of a house and lot in the city of Kalamazoo, of the value of $2,500defendant claimed to own and, as the records in the office of the register of deeds also show, did own, a farm of 80 acres in Portage township, Kalamazoo county. A short time before May 13, 1913, he came to relator, whose property he had theretofore examined, and negotiations began between them as to an exchange of these properties. She charges that he fraudulently and falsely represented to her he had just purchased this farm and paid for it the sum of $4,000; that the property was well worth that amount; that there were situate upon said premises a good house, barn, and other outbuildings; that the soil was good and productive; that there was a man, or family, living upon said farm and working it — all of which representations as to the value of said farm, the amount he paid for it, the quality of the land, that it was being occupied and cultivated, were false and fraudulent. During these negotiations he further
Relator believed such statements, and, relying implicitly and fully upon such false and fraudulent statements and representations so made by defendant to her, did not go ‘to the said premises or make any inquiry or investigation concerning them, or the value and condition of the same, then and there accepted his offer to exchange properties, being induced to do so by such false and fraudulent representations, which she believed to be true, and on May 13, 1913, she executed and delivered to him'a warranty deed of her premises, and on the same date, his wife joining him, defendant executed and delivered' to her a warranty deed of this farm, subject to a mortgage of $600, and also subject to the land contract of $4,000, less $1,500 paid thereon, assigned the said land contract to her, and paid her $200. She states that had she known the true condition of the farm, and that the statements and representations of defendant were false and fraudulent, she would not have made the exchange* of properties with defendant, received what he deeded to her, or deeded her property to him.
In support of her affidavit, made upon her own knowledge, the substance of which has been given, relator, upon her application for a writ of capias, to show the falsity of defendant’s statements to her, presented the affidavit of the original owner of the farm, showing that he sold it to defendant for the sum of $1,000, and no more, of which $400 was paid in cash, and the balance secured by mortgage on the farm for
The record presents but one question to be determined, and that is whether the shoeing made by the affidavit of relator, and the affidavits annexed to and made a part of it, stated a cause of action and entitled her to this writ of capias. Respondent determined the matter upon the sole ground that there had been no forfeiture of this contract, and relator had not been damnified. The truth of the statements contained in relator’s showing made upon the application for the writ are not questioned in these proceedings. Is a cause of action for fraud stated?
By these false and fraudulent statements made by defendant to relator that he had paid $4,000 for the land he desired to exchange for her property, and that his land was worth it, that there were on said premises a good house, barn, and other outbuildings, that the soil was good and productive, that there was a
Attorneys for respondent contend that relator received, as a consideration for her premises, the land contract for $4,000, upon which $1,500 had been paid, and $200 in cash, and the argument is made that this was a valuable consideration upon the face of the papers, and, no default having been made in the payments on this contract, she has not been damaged or defrauded and has no right of action against defendant. There is no force in this contention, as far as these proceedings are concerned. It might possibly be material upon the trial of the case as bearing upon the measure of damages.
In view of the proof presented, showing the true condition and actual value of the premises for which defendant by fraud induced relator to exchange her property, this contract to sell these premises for nearly three times the actual value might well be considered as tending to support relator’s contention that she had been defrauded. It was not necessary that default should occur in this contract as a condition precedent to bringing suit for fraud.
It is intimated by counsel that relator has not rescinded the contract and offered to restore what she received. Upon this proposition it need only be said that it is well-settled law that no rescission or restitution is -necessary as a condition precedent to maintaining an action for damages arising from false representations and deceit. 20 • Cyc. p. 91, and cases
A peremptory writ of mandamus will issue against respondent to compel him forthwith to set aside the order made and entered by him quashing the proceedings and discharging defendant from bail in the cause pending in the circuit court, Kalamazoo county, wherein relator is plaintiff and Fred Herreman is defendant, and to proceed in due course to hear said cause upon its merits. Relator will recover costs of these proceedings against Fred A. Herreman.