Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1924-02-27
FARM
DEAL TRIED IN
CIRCUIT COURT
Jury Holds Farmer Must
Stand By Judgment in
Buying Big Place.

lone jury case was tried in circuit
court last week the greater part of
four days being consumed in consid-
ering it. The action was the suit of
Oscar Loeffelholtz of jamestown YER
sus the May Brothers, Elmer and
Charles, formerly of Louisburg,
jamestown township. Elmer now lives
in Dubuque while Charles is farming
in Colorado. The May Brothers won
the suit
Mr. Loeffelholtz brought to recov-
er for damages he claims he suffered
as result of a farm deal. In Sep
TENDER, 1920, when he traded his
jamestown farm to May Brothers, as
part consideration for the May place
of 364.46 acres. They May place went
in the deal at $4,000, being the high
est priced piece of farm property ever
sold in Grant county. Mr.. Loeffelholtz
put his 240 acre farm in at $36 900 and
gave a mortgage for 100000 at per
cent.
Shortly after the deal farm prices
began to drop and Mr.. Loeffelholtz
tired of his deal. In May, 1922, he ar
ranged with May Brothers to take the
farm back, releasing him from further
liability. He claims that by verbal
agreement the May Brothers offered
to recompense him for the huge loss
he had suffered and subsequent fail
ure ID do this brought on the lawsuit.
AS might be inferred the case was
complicated and lengthy. The result
may best be determined by the jury's
answer to the following questions
Did either OF the defendants to in
duce plaintiff to purchase their farm,
represent to the plaintiff that the land
not examined by the plaintiff was as
good as that portion he did examine?
Answer-No.
Did either of the defendants to in
duce the plaintiff to purchase their
farm represent to plaintiff that during
the time they had operated the farm
they had usually made net profit
thereon from hogs alone in excess of
$11 900 year? Answer-No.
A total net profit in excess of $751;
900 year? Answer-No.
Did either of the defendants to in
duce the plaintiff to purchase their
farm, represent to the plaintiff that
there were no Canada thistle thereon?
Answer-No.
Did either of defendants to induce
plaintiff to purchase their farm rep
resent to plaintiff that they had been
offered $500 an acre for 200 acres?
Answer-Yes.
Was such representation false? An
swer-No.
Did plaintiff rely on such represent
tation? Answer-No.
Was it agreed between plaintiff and
defendants that as a consideration for
plaintiff reconveying to defendants
May 10, 1922, the 1854 acre farm the
defendants were to release the $780,
900 note and mortgage on said farm
and give plaintiff the use of said farm
until Feb. 1, 1928, rent free, upon
plaintiff paying taxes thereon for the
year 1922? Answer by court-Yes.
Did defendant, e. c. May, as fur
Their consideration for plaintiff for re-
conveying to defendants the 364 acre
farm May 10, 1922, agree to pay to
plaintiff the sum of $4,000 less the
sum of $4,000 then owing them from
plaintiff on a note and less the sum of
SIS, 400 as interest for one year on the
100000 note given by plaintiff to de-
PENDANTS? Answer-No.
1t seems that May Bros. sold the
farm they acquired of LoeffelholtZ for
$33 900. Mr. Loeffelholtz claimed that
when he reconveyed the 364 acre farm
back to May Bros. he was to receive
the $33 900 his old farm sold for less
the $4,000 for personal property he
bought of May Bros. and less $5,400
interest on the 100000 note for one
year. This in effect made his suit for
the sum of $24 400. He lost his case.
Kopp e Brunckhorst represented
May Bros. and Brennan & Carthew
and r. M. Orchard appeared for Loef-
felholtz.