Court Opinion

ID: 9865436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:42:19.093222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:38.718725
License: Public Domain

The Court,

Gilpin Ch. J.,

charged the jury: The action was for an alleged deceit practiced on the plaintiff by the defendant, as the former asserts, in the sale of the timber under the written contract which had been proved and submitted to them in the case. The ground of the action was the alleged deception or deceit, and the gist of it was the fraudulent purpose and design with which it was alleged to have been done, and which must be proved. If the tract of woodland referred to in the instrument, had been defined by actual boundaries, or by courses and distances, this controversy perhaps, would not have arisen between the parties; for the dispute now is in regard to the location in part, of the timber sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, and the representations made, or alleged to have been made, by the former in regard to that matter, and also as to the quantity and quality of the timber on a portion of the tract. As to which, the jury had heard the evidence on both sides, and it would be for them alone to determine the facts to which that evidence related. There was one thing, however, of which it was proper the court should apprise them, that this was not an action technically founded on *164the contract for a breach of it, but was an action on the case, as it is termed, based on the alleged deceit and fraud of the defendant in falsely and knowingly misrepresenting the limit and quantity, as well as quality, of at least, a part of the timber on the west side of a large ditch running through the tract; and as the fraud and deceit which is alleged, is the sole foundation of the action, it is necessary for the plaintiff .to prove, in order to establish such alleged fraud and deceit, and to entitle him to recover, not only that the representations of the defendant on these points were false, by reason of which the plaintiff was induced to make the purchase, but also, that he knew them to be untrue at the time when he made them. And whatever these representations may have been proved to be to the apprehension of the jury, it must also be shown for this purpose, that they were made to the plaintiff, or his agent, either before, or at the time of making of the contract; for no representations made afterwards, could have had any effect to induce the plaintiff to enter into it.