Action for damages for fraudulent representations concerning the title to certain real property, in which plaintiff had a verdict, and defendant Babler appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
The facts in brief are as follows: Plaintiff was in possession of certain real property in the city of Anoka, known as the “Blanchett Hotel,” under an executory contract for the purchase of the same. Defendant Babler, a real estate dealer doing business in Minneapolis, held the fee title to the property, subject to plaintiff’s contract of purchase. Plaintiff was in default in some of the payments required by the contract. Defendant Babler introduced to plaintiff the subject of a trade of the property for land in North Dakota, representing that he had a client who owned a half section in Dunn county, that state, subject to an indebtedness of $900, and thought that he could effect an exchange. Plaintiff requested that the client be brought in and they would talk the matter over.
The sole consideration for plaintiff’s assignment of his rights in the hotel 'property was the agreement to convey to him the Dakota land, and he was induced to part with it upon the representations of defendants that Mrs. Bricker owned the same. ’ As'a matter of fact Mrs. Bricker had no title, right, or interest in the land at the time, nor, so far as disclosed by the record, has she possessed any such title or interest since that time. Some time prior to this transaction
It is contended by appellant: (1) That the evidence wholly fails to establish a cause of action, and that the court below erred in denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) that the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial for errors occurring on the trial and other grounds.
1. A careful consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that all questions presented by the pleadings were properly submitted to the jury and that the evidence fully sustains the verdict. The jury was justified in finding that the transaction, as the result of which plaintiff parted with his hotel property in consideration of the contract from Mrs. Bricker to convey to him the North Dakota land, in which she had no interest at the time, was in the interest of defendant Babler, and that the benefits resulting therefrom all accrued to him. He induced and brought about the contract of exchange by his representations that he had a client who owned the North Dakota land, and he procured that client to contract to convey the same to plaintiff, when he knew, or ought to have known, that the client had no title to convey.
We will not stop to consider just what a representation of ownership of real property implies or amounts to, whether as a matter of law it should be treated as an assertion of fee title, or of some other interest; for it is clear that one -to whom such a representation is made may properly rely thereon as an assertion of at least a eonveyable or assignable interest, an interest not shown in Mrs. Bricker. We therefore pass this branch of appellant’s argument.
That the representation was shown to be untrue cannot well be disputed. Defendant offered no evidence whatever that Mrs. Brieker was the owner of the land, and it was sufficiently shown that she was not. At least the jury was justified, from the evidence presented, together with the statement of defendants when the balance due upon the purchase price was tendered to them, that they were finable to perform the contract, in concluding that their inability to perform was because of the fact, nothing being shown to the contrary, that Mrs. Brieker had no title or interest to convey. Much that is said in the brief of appellant upon this branch of the case has reference to the contention that some of the evidence offered for the purpose of showing the facts stated was incompetent and for various reasons inadmissible, and therefore that there was no evidence to support the verdict. We find no merit in this claim. The evidence offered was the best at hand, the land being in another state, was properly admitted, and sufficient to establish plaintiff’s cause of action.
2. We have fully considered the assignments of error challenging certain rulings of the trial court and here made the basis of the contention that a new trial should be granted, and discover no sufficient reason for disapproving the order appealed from. It is probable that some of the evidence objected to, particularly that having reference to the contemporaneous transfer by plaintiff of certain articles of hotel furniture and fixtures, was irrelevant and immaterial; but it was clearly without prejudice to the substantial rights of appellant, and therefore no ground for a new trial. But we deem it unnecessary separately to consider all the alleged errors in the admission and exclusion of evidence. Many of the objections made and overruled' were technical and without substance, and others were not of a character to justify a reversal.
Order affirmed.