The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1915-07-01

made.
A portion of the opinion follows:
I'm making the trade the Mile
Laos county farm was put in at SlO,-
900, less a mortgage of ST, 900 to be
cared for by Holmes, a net sum of
SO, 1000, and the stock at $4,000, it's
face value. This stock of SO, 900 was
in the Security Bank at Minneapolis
subject to lien of So. 500 for a debt
owed by Holmes. There was some
difficulty in carrying out the details
of the exchange. Neither party had
ready money. Finally. it was ar
ranged in this way: Wilkes gave his
note for 500 to the Market Bank.
This was to be the obligation of
Holmes, but he had borrowed to his
there. The $4,000 block of
stock was to stand as collateral to it.
with the So, 500 obtained Holmes
released his block of stock in the Sc
curity Bank, and the stock, or rather
stock in another company substi-
tuted by consent then belonging to
Wilkes, by agreement of Holmes and
Wilkes, stood as collateral to the
SO, 500 note in the Market Bank.
Holmes was party to the note.
1.-The Mile Laos county farm was
subject to 81, 900 mortgage. Wilkes
made a deed of it to Holmes, dated
September 2, 1913, and placed it in
escrow with one Piper to be deliv-
cred to Holmes upon the delivery to
him of the So, 500 note Cancelled, and
a satisfaction of the 81, 900 mortgage.
1T was intended in a general way
that Holmes would borrow 81, 500 on
the land, use $1,000 in discharging
the first mortgage, and SO, 500 in pay
ing the $1,000 note, and this would
complete the transaction, leaving
Holmes with the deed to the farm
and Wilkes with title to the SO, 900
block of stock. This was not, how
ever, done. The So. note was re-
newed from time to time for few
days at time. Holmes and the
bank, as found by the court, con-
irving together and intending to
defraud Wilkes, sold the $4,000 stock
collateral to the $500 note for just
the amount due on the note, thus
paying it. The Cancelled note was
then presented to Piper, the man
holding tire deed in escrow, and he
delivered the deed to Holmes, who
recorded it. on November "a, 1913.
The 1000 mortgage was not salts
fed. Holmes got possession of the
deed wrongfully. This is the deed
under which he claims. After trouble
came, the defendant Wilkes, by a
deed dated and recorded on No.
vember, 1913, decided the farm to
the Defendant Doane. Holmes hav-
ing procured the sale of the stock
traded to Wilkes the latter was not
obliged to restore it as condition to
relief. 1t was collateral to Holmes
debt. He having wrongfully pro-
cured its sale for the payment of his
own debt, and so that he might get
possession Of the deed then in es-
crow, can not complain if Judgment
of rescission goes against him with
out restoration.
The syllabus follows:
E. M. Holmes, appellant, VS.. A.
c Wilke, ct al, respondents.
l. A vendor who induces the pur-
chase of corporate stock by promis-
ing the vendee salaried position
with the corporation, knowing that
the vendee will not be accepted for
such position, and not intending
that his representation will be made
good, is guilty of actionab1e fraud.
2. Evidence held sufficient to sus-
tain finding that the plaintiff to
induce a purchase of corporate stock
by one of the defendants, made such
a representation.
3. The plaintiff having by fraud
ulent representations induced an
exchange of stock owned by him for
lands owned by the defendants, the
stock by agreement of the paintiff
and the defendant being afterwards
temporarily pledged for debt prim-
arily that of the plaintiff, and having
been sold by the Pledge to pay the
debt through the fraud of the plain
tiff, he cannot complain that the
stock was not restored to him upon
a rescission of the exchange by the
defendant;
Order affirmed.
Opinion by Commissioner Dibe1l.
Zimmerman Wins Another.