Case Name: John Busterud vs. Gilson F. Farrington
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1887-01-03
Citations: 36 Minn. 320
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Busterud vs. Gilson F. Farrington.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 36
Pages: 320–322

Head Matter:
John Busterud vs. Gilson F. Farrington.
January 3, 1887.
Essentials of Action for Deceit. — An action for deceit lies against one who makes a false representation of a material fact susceptible of knowledge, knowing it to be false, or as of his own knowledge when he does not know whether it is true or false, with, intention to induce the person to whom it is made, in reliance upon it, to do or refrain from doing something to his pecuniary hurt, when such person, acting with reasonable prudence, is thereby deceived and induced to so do or refrain, to his damage.
Same — Person making Representation need not be Benefited. — It is not necessary to the action that the person making the representation should derive any benefit from the deceit, or collude with the party who is benefited. A person not a vendor of the thing with reference to the sale of which he makes a false representation of the value thereof, is responsible for such representation.
Same — Representation as to Matters affecting Value of Property.— A false representation as to the condition, quality, or other matters affecting the value of property of which the person to whom the representation is made, is contemplating a purchase, is a false representation as to material facts.
Action for deceit, brought in the district court for Hennepin county. The complaint alleges, in substance, these facts: The plaintiff was in negotiation with one Edwards for an exchange of a lot belonging to plaintiff in Minneapolis for a lot belonging to defendant in Grand Bapids in Cass county which Edwards offered to have conveyed to plaintiff. The plaintiff made inquiry of the defendant as to the location and value of the Grand Bapids property.' ■ The defendant, with intent to defraud plaintiff and to induce him to make the exchange, made to plaintiff the following representations, each of which was false and was known to defendant to be false: that he was well acquainted with the location and value of the lot in Grand Bapids; that it was worth and would sell in market for $400; that lots near it and of no greater value had been sold for $500; that he had sold an undivided third interest in water power in the village for $2,000 in cash; that seven saloons were located and doing business in the village, and 1,300 votes had been cast there, by residents thereof, at the last presidential election. The defendant also exhibited a pretended plat of the village, and pointed out upon it the pretended location of a railway station and other buildings, which he falsely stated had been erected in the village, and pointed out a small piece of land which he said he had sold for $1,300 cash. Plaintiff had never been at Grand Rapids, and knew nothing of that village or the value of lots therein, and he so informed the defendant, and also.told him that in buying any property there he should rely wholly on the information then given him by the defendant. Believing and relying on defendant’s representations, the plaintiff made the exchange, and afterwards learned that when the representations were made, the so-called village was waste land, without a railroad, water power, a building, public or private, a saloon, a voter, or an inhabitant; that it was many miles from any city or village; that the land in it never had any value except for the pine growing thereon, of which it had, however, been stripped before the representations were made. Plaintiff’s lot that he conveyed in exchange was worth $400, at which sum he lays his damages.
A demurrer to this complaint was sustained by Young, J., and the. plaintiff appealed.
Brooks é Hendrix, for appellant.
Russell, Emery é Reed, for respondent.

Opinion:
Berry, J.
An action for deceit lies against one who makes ar false representation of a material fact susceptible of knowledge, knowing it to be false, or as of his own knowledge when he does not know whether it is true or false, with intention to induce the person to whom it is made, in reliance upon it, to do or refrain from doing something to his pecuniary hurt, when such person, acting with reasonable prudence, is thereby deceived and induced to so do or refrain, to his damage. Bigelow on Torts, § 1-6; Grinnell, Law of Deceit, 45, 46; Wilder v. De Cou, 18 Minn. 421, (470;) Litchfield v. Hutchinson, 117 Mass. 195; McAleer v. Horsey, 35 Md. 439; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197, (20 N. W. Rep. 138.) It is not necessary to the action that the person making the representa. tion should receive any benefit from the deceit, or that he should collude with the jjarty who is benefited. Pasley v. Freeman, 3 Term R. 51; Upton v. Vail, 6 John. 181, (5 Am. Dec. 210;) Hubbard v. Briggs, 31 N. Y. 518; Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480; Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246, (39 Am. Dec. 726.) "The gravamen of the charge is that plaintiff has been deceived, to his hurt, not that the defendant has gained an advantage." Fisher v. Mellen, 103 Mass. 503.
' A. vendor's false representation of the value of a thing which he proposes to sell, is ordinarily not actionable, (Wilder v. De Cou, supra,) though it may be so under special circumstances. Griffin v. Farrier, 32 Minn. 474, (21 N. W. Rep. 553.) But this immunity is not extended to a person not a vendor. He is held responsible generally for a false representation of value; the excuse of interest, and of the natural disposition of men to overestimate their own property, not being allowed in this case. Grinnell, Law of Deceit, 41-45, 50-52, 64; Medbury v. Watson, supra, A false representatation as to the condition, quality, or other matters affecting the value of property, of which the person to whom the representations are made is contemplating a purchase, is a false representation as to material facts; that is to say, of facts material to the purchaser with reference to the question whether the purchase will be for his advantage. Bigelow on Torts, 17; Litchfield v. Hutchinson, supra; McAleer v. Horsey, supra; Grinnell, Law of Deceit, 38-40.
The complaint in the action at bar amply states a case within the foregoing rules, and the order sustaining the general demurrer to .such complaint is accordingly reversed.