Mexico weekly ledger., 1892-03-10

any kinds of beds and bedding
therein, nor would it operate with
as much weight as ordinary beds
must carry necessarily, and, when
so built of the ordinary weight and
dimensions, that it would fall and
tip over in operation with or without
any bed furnishings on it, and
Second. That it was a danger.
GUS and worthless dead-fall and
could not safely be used as bed.
Fraud is the ground of action and
the representations as above recited
alleged to have been made before
the written contract was entered
into, are the means through which
plaintiff was induced to make the
contract.
Ii these representations were
made by defendant to plaintiff and
were true, or any of them material
to the contract afterwards made and
were relied on by plaintiff as true,
when in fact they were false, then
the contract should not stand. But
if defendant did not make such rep.
RESERVATIONS or any of them, or not.
withstanding defendant made them,
the plaintiff relied on his judgment,
or they were not material to the
contract or were false, then the con.
tract should stand.
Courts do not undertake to make
contracts for the parties, they make
them for themselves-voluntarily
impose their own burdens, whether
light or heavy to bear, and when
freely and fairly assumed courts
will leave them to their own judg.
ment, whether wisely or foolishly
exercised. 1t is only where fraud
accident or mistake is present thai
the courts can undertake to cancel &
contract, and that upon the theory
that the so-callcd contract is really
no contract at all, the minds of tht
parties never having fully and fairly
met upon the proposition.
Fraudulent representations il
order to afford a ground for belle
must be of facts which then existed
or had existed in distinction from
an opinion, a promise, or an assum
ed future fact.
The first series of representation
plaintiff charges the defendan
made, it will be observed, consist il
a description of the bed togethel
with an opinion of the defendant al
to the value and future popularity o
the same, resulting from the substi
tuition of springs for weights.
The second is an allegation of I
pre-existing fact-that defendan
had applied for a patent for his in
vention and that his application
was then pending and undeter
mined-and this if false was Ger
tainly material and should warran
the cancellation of the contract.
The third in the beginning state
the opinion (for it can't be any
thing else) of the defendant tina
his invention was such an improve
ment on folding beds as would dis
pense with the use of weights ant
next as to the materials and dimen
sions of the bed and then that tn
"down-pull" of the springs woult
equal the "down-pull" of the fold
ing part of the bed, or that the bet
should not tip when operated.
This whole controversy reall,
grows out of the alleged falsity Q
the fact that the "down-pull' Q
the springs was equal to the "down
pull" of the bed proper. All othe
| allegations of misrepresentation
are minor and hang upon this. I
the effect of the springs is to main
tain the equilibrium of the be-
when in motion, then plaintiff il
his own opinion and in that of al
the expert witnesses would have
very valuable invention, but if suel
| is not the effect of the springs, thel
plaintiff would have a valueles
property.
As said before, the representa-
tions, outside of a warranty, upol
which the law authorizes party t
rely in the making of contract
must be of a fact then existing Q
pre-existing These facts must be
too, of concrete character. as dis
tinguished from a truth or princi
lple. Here the facts-the springs
rollers, tracks, ETC., are known t
the plaintiff as well as to the dc
fendant. No fact is concealed froI
him as to the various parts an
devices entering into the eonstrut
ltion of the bed. Defendant tel
him that the result of this comb
nation of things will be that the be
will remain stationary while bein
operated. Plaintiff could invest
gate this as well as defendant. N
door of knowledge is closed on hin
He does not rely on the mere opil
ion of defendant as to how the IN;
chinery will act, for it is but a
) opinion at best, but having all Il
; facts before him could draw col
t clusion from them, as well as d
/ fendant.
If he was not satisfied with b
own opinion and voluntarily cho
: to adopt defendants as to the effe
| of these facts, it was his privilege
: to do, but he ought not now to cor
| plain of it. The law does not +
l lieve one from a contract becau
he was mistaken in his judgme
1 upon open, patent facts.
r The very life of trade is freedo
of judgment. Plaintiff says he W
h imposed on by the false philosophy
v defendant, that is, that the opinio
!, of defendant as to the effect of t
e mechanical forces employed we
n erroneous, and that really is t
f ground of his complaint. The I
t euliar medico-religious views
: plaintiff, though occupying
: thoughts to some extent, did not
s terfere with his good sense in t
u general management OF bis bushes
i and if it be fact that he was
r