Court Opinion

ID: 6738372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:20:15.303571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:52.820513
License: Public Domain

Robinson, J.
(concurring). Defendants appeal from a judgment for the rescission of a land trade on the ground that it was obtained by fraud and false representations. Under the statute a party may rescind a contract when his consent was given by mistake or obtained by fraud or undue influence. In this case it appears beyond all question that the defendants Creglow, Gibbs, and Kelley contrived to “gold brick” the plaintiff. By gross fraud, misrepresentations, they induced him to convey to Gibbs 1,120 acres of good land in Bowman county at $35 an acre, amounting to $39,200, in exchange for 2,320 acres of white sand land in twp. 45, range 4, of Upper Michigan peninsula. They claimed to have a contract with the Upper Michigan Land Company to sell them the land at $20 an acre, amounting to $46,400, and that on the contract (which plaintiff had never seen), the balance due was $7,888. This balance the plaintiff assumed and they paid him the difference, $688.
The original contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was dated February 10, 1915, and signed by Charles Creglow and the plaintiff. Creglow agreed to assign to plaintiff a contract for the sale of the land by the Upper Michigan Land Company, subject to the payment of $7,888, which plaintiff assumed. Creglow agreed to give plaintiff a copy of his contract with the Michigan Land Company, but afterwards, when a copy was demanded, Creglow claimed that it included other lands. Hence, to replace the first contract he volunteered to give plaintiff a contract direct from the Michigan Land Company. The new contract was given and dated March 1, 1915, and it contained this clause: “The party of the second part (the plaintiff) agrees and warrants that he has inspected the premises, and that in making the purchase and agreement he is not relying upon any representations made by the first party or any agent or servant thereof, and expressly waives any claim on that account.”
As such a clause is never found in an honest contract, it is strong evidence of the alleged fraud. The party who dictated that clause knew that misrepresentations had been made, and desired to hedge *112against the same. To put such a clause in a contract is like an ostrich putting his head in the sand to hide its body.
In the brief of counsel for appellant, it is said that to induce the Michigan Land Company to contract with the plaintiff to convey the land to him in consideration of $9,860, Gibbs, Kelley, and Creglow must either have paid or agreed to pay the difference between that and $46,400. That' argument assumes that the judges are very simple and easily hoodwinked, but we conceive it quite possible and even probable that Gibbs, Kelley, and Creglow were part of the Michigan Land Company, or that they stood in with it, and that they never made a- good-faith contract to purchase the land for $46,400. Such a representation was merely a bait for suckers like the plaintiff, but Gibbs and Company were not suckers. They never agreed to purchase’ a worthless lot of white sand at $46,400. These three real defendants employed W. G. Anderson, of St. Paul, to aid them in making the contract. He kept after the plaintiff week after week for three months, assuring him that the Michigan land had a good clay subsoil, and that said lands were fully as good as land near Sault Ste. Marie, which the plaintiff had seen and knew to be well worth $25 to $30 an acre.
In February, 1915, before making the trade, one of the defendants took plaintiff to see the land, and he passed an hour in trying to go over the land on snow shoes, but in June, 1915, he went over the land with the county surveyor, and they passed three days in digging holes into each 40-acre tract. They dug 200 holes and found nothing only white sand. The testimony of the surveyor is absolutely conclusive, and it shows that the land was worthless. It is needless to cite and to argue the evidence. The case is too plain. When it appears that a party has made a contract which no person of common sense would make if correctly informed, the fair presumption is that he was induced to make such contract by fraud and misrepresentations. The plaintiff has fully complied with all the conditions necessary to a rescission of the deal. Really it does seem that counsel should know better than to appeal such a case as this.
Judgment affirmed.