62 Iowa 442 | Iowa | 1883
I. We will consider the objections to the judgment urged by defendants’ counsel in the order of their discussion in argument.
The petition declares upon fraudulent representations made by defendants, inducing plaintiff to enter, into a contract for the sale of fence posts and wire for fencing. It is alleged that he was induced to enter into the contract through a conspiracy of the defendants to cheat and defraud him. The allegations of the petition are denied by defendants.
The defendants first insist that the evidence fails to support the verdict, and that there is an absence of proof of
II. It is next urged that the circuit court erroneously admitted the evidence of certain witnesses for plaintiff,
It does not appear from the testimony of Shaw that the statements to which he testified were not made in the presence of plaintiff. But, indeed, it may be inferred from liis testimony that plaintiff was present at the conversation to which witness refers.
By the contract between the parties, which plaintiff claims was induced by the fraud and conspiracy of the defendants, he became their agent for the sale of the posts. Before this contract was entered into, the defendants had negotiations with Peet and Myrick with a view to contracting with them for an agency of the same character as that which plaintiff finally assumed under the contract. The statements testified to by these witnesses were made during these negotiations, and consisted of representations which are of the%ame character as those made to plaintiff, and which he alleges were false and fraudulent. The evidence, we think, was rightly admitted. This is not unlike the case where one holds himself out as competent to render service, or exposes goods for sale with public representations of their quality. He will
III. The plaintiff was permitted to testify, against defendants’ objection, that defendants represented that the posts
IY. The plaintiff testified that the defendants represented that certain notes were to be held as collateral security.
Y. The plaintiff testified that defendants promised to furnish him wire and posts at agreed prices, and thajt, after
The foregoing discussion disposes of all objections urged in argument by defendants’ counsel. In our ojunion the judgment of the circuit court ought to be
Affirmed.