Court Opinion

ID: 9831812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:22:53.355869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:38.226522
License: Public Domain

*93On Motion for Rehearing.
In the opening of the motion for rehearing this court is informed, “This is not a fraud case,” and this is the burden of the motion ; and it is argued that the petition did not allege nor the verdict find fraud in the transaction between Erna Hillmer and appel-lee. The first allegation in the petition is that the lands of appellee were obtained “through fraudulent representations and false promises on the part of the said Erna Hill-mer,” and again it is alleged that, after certain detailed conduct on the part of Mrs. Hill-mer, appellee “became convinced that she had purposely and fraudulently deceived him for the purpose of getting his property and cheating and defrauding him of the value thereof.” This court concludes that under the direct allegations there is a “fraud ease.” The very narration of the facts found in the petition would raise the issue of fraud, even if the word “fraud” had not been mentioned in the pleading. The facts established the fraud beyond a doubt, and the facts found by the jury in answer to the special issues established fraud. The question of the fraud of Mrs. Hillmer was submitted to the jury, and the liability of Wick is made to turn in the seventh special issue on his knowledge of “the fraudulent manner, if any, in which the said Erna Hillmer had acquired said property, if she did fraudulently acquire the same from said Asher.” In the ninth special issue the jury was asked: “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that at the time plaintiff, John Asher, executed the said affidavit and confirmation deed as described in plaintiff’s petition, the said defendant, Erna Hillmer, made false and fraudulent representations and promises to the said John Asher for the purpose of influencing him and inducing him to execute said instruments?” The petition alleged fraud, the testimony established it, the court submitted it to the jury, and they answered that the evidence established fraud. Mrs. Hillmer gave nothing but promises for all of the property of appellee, promises that she never dreamed of carrying into execution, and she should not be allowed to profit by her fraudulent conduct, and deprive appellee of all the fruits of a lifetime of privation and hard labor.
Wick knew before he purchased that the only consideration for the land, received by appellee, was the promise of a woman to marry him. He was told this before he purchased. He was told that appellee’s neighbors thought he had been defrauded out of his property, through his infatuation for Mrs. Hillmer. Wick admitted he heard that before and he was told there would be trouble about it. If he made any inquiry as to the consideration, it is not disclosed. Simply by asking Mrs. Hillmer he could have ascertained if she paid anything to appellee. He made no inquiry about the land until after he had concluded to purchase it, and then only as to the 166%-acre tract, and only made that inquiry in order to satisfy parties from whom he desired to obtain a loan on the land. He made no inquiry whatever about the 395-acre tract of land that he purchased from Mrs. Hillmer, and the confirmatory deed from appellee and the affidavit .obtained from him made no reference to the 395 acres of land. Those two instruments mentioned only the 166%-aerp tract. There were suspicious circumstances surrounding the whole transaction, and yet through it all appellee seemed determined to give his land to a woman who had given nothing for it,, except' a hollow promise to marry him, which she evidently never intended to put into execution. However, his per-sistency in the assertion that the property belonged to Mrs. Hillmer may have misled Wick and caused him to buy the land. While the writer of this opinion is convinced that Wick must have known that there was no consideration for the sale of the land to Mrs. Hillmer, still the evidence upon which his bad faith must rest is not of such a convincing and sat'isfactory nature as to uphold a verdict and sustain a judgment. The evidence has not been developed in the case as it should have been, not only as to the fact of notice, but as to the state of mind of the old farmer who was the willing victim of a woman bent on depriving him of all his property and then cast him aside.
We would not hesitate to afinan the judgment as to Mrs. Hillmer, were it not that such affirmance might deprive appellee of the right to a judgment for an additional amount in case a judgment should be rendered in favor of H. T. Wick on another trial. Appellee should be recompensed by Mrs. Hillmer for any land that might be adjudged to Wick on the ground that he was an innocent purchaser for value, with a lien on the apartment obtained by her from Wick.
We have concluded to grant a rehearing and reverse the judgment and- remand the cause with instructions to the trial court to-render the judgment against Mrs. Hillmer in favor of John H. Asher, as prayed for in his petition, and in case Wick should obtain a judgment in his favor on another trial, then to include in the judgment in favor of appel-lee against Mrs. Hillmer the full value of the-property adjudged to Wick. On another trial the investigation should be confih’ed to the -bona tides of H. T. Wick in the purchase of appellee’s property from Mrs. Hillmer. The costs of this appeal are taxed against Mrs. Hillmer.
Reversed and remanded, with instructions.