The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1902-10-24

TO be the property on when inc ue-
PENDANT held said mortgage, ana IN
said mortgage the representation
was made that 100 acres of said land
were in cultivation and the balance
was in timber.
Afterwards, on or about March IL,
1884, deed was received by plaintiff
through the post Office executed by
said Alley and wife conveying to
plaintiff the southwest quarter OF
section 2, township 26 south, OF
range east, in said county of Green
wood, and about the same time SAID
Alley disappeared from Kansas City.
This deed was exhibited to the de-
PENDANT by plaintiff, and inquiry
made as to it's meaning, and he then
said that Alley had made a mistake
in the mortgage, and that the last
named deed conveyed the properly
which should have been described in
the mortgage by Alley to plaintiff
and represented that the land de-
scribed in the deed was that upon
which he held the $1,000 mortgage.
Soon thereafter, about May 81, 1884,
the defendant represented to PLAIN
tiff that he had discovered that the
deed. as aforesaid, of March IL, 1854
did not contain the proper land, ana
that as it was his mistake in convey
ing the said land to said Alley, he
would correct it by making deed
directly to plaintiff, which he did,
conveying the southwest quarter of
section =, township PC south; OF range
s. in said Greenwood county, Kan
sas. and he then represented that
this was the same land which he had
referred to when first called on by
plaintiff, before she had transferred
her furniture to said Alley, and which
land was chargeable with the $1,000
mortgage, and he again repeated
that the land was worth over $4,000,
and abundant security for the $3.50
so due to plaintiff, and that, of said
land, 100 acres we're in cultivation
and the balance in good timber.
Plaintiff says that defendant con-
cocted the scheme to cheat and de-
fraud plaintiff, and employed and
used Alley as tool; that all the rep
reservations made by both said Alley
and defendant concerning said land
we're false, and known by them to
be false when made, and that they
we're made for the purpose and with
the intent, on the part of both, to
cheat and defraud the plaintiff; and
said land was not improved or tim
bered. nor worth, $1,000, but was
wholly unimproved and uncultivated,
rocky and broken, and not worth,
clear of all encumbrance to exceed
$500. Plaintiff says that she parted
with her property and took said notes
therefor relying entirely upon the
representations of the defendant as
to said land; that Alley was stran-
ger to her, and that he is wholly in
sovlent, and nothing can be realized
from said land. and that, by such
false and fraudulent representations,
her property, as aforesaid, OF the
value of $3.50, has been wholly lost
to her. Wherefore, she asks judg-
ment against the defendant for said
sum of $3.50, and interest, and the
cost of suit.
The answer admitted the arrange
ment between plaintiff and Alley, and
the mistake in the description of the
land as given by Alley, and the cor
rection thereof by his deed, but says
it was done in good faith by him;
denies the other allegations of the
petition, and alleges that plaintiff
has not paid the sum of $1,000.
The plaintiffs evidence fully sus-
tanned the allegations of the petit
ton. 1t also shows that, as a mat
ter of fact, the defendant has never
loaned any money to Alley or taken
any mortgage on the land that de-
PENDANT owned the land himself, and
had merely given Alley, who was
known to be insolvent, an option on
his land by paying defendant the
sum of $1,000, the title all the time
remaining in defendant. Alley dis
appeared, shortly after this transac-
ton, having disposed of the prop
erty he so obtained from plaintiff.
The defendants testimony tended
to show that he acted in good faith
in the matter, though his testimony
was evasive as to the representa-
tions he made. His evidence also
tended to show that, after he made
his statements to plaintiff, he told
her not to rely upon them. He, how
ever, repeated the statements and as
surances to plaintiff about the quail
ity, situation and value of the land
at the second meeting, when he made
her the deed to the land, on her as
sumption of the $1,000 mortgage.
The instructions for the plaintiff,
excepted to by defendant, are as fol-
lows:
(Here follows copy of instructions
upon which error was based)
The jury returned a verdict for
plaintiff. Defendant has appealed.
C. o. Tichenor, for the appellant.
M. r. Downs, and Karnes & Kraut-
hoff, for respondent.
Opinion delivered by Hon. John +.