Court Opinion

ID: 9548636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:06:20.43222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:12.530498
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Here the purchasers, in writing, agreed:
“Buyer has personally inspected said premises and personal property and is personally familiar with the location, size, and condition thereof and is relying solely upon Buyer’s own information about and investigation of the same * *
The purchasers also agreed, in writing, to bear their own surveying expense.
Rather than having a survey made, of land they knew to be unsurveyed, the purchasers, armed with a diagram or map of the two-acre tract which fronted on a highway, went forth and with their own tape measured out what they assumed to be the tract. They assumed this from having found wood stakes with blue or red tops.
The purchasers had just previously to this purchase, been involved in another purchase of a tract of land about % mile away next to the same highway. In that instance plaintiff Tom Goggans testified that he bought the tract “* * * with them showing me the lines and promising the survey the fol*461lowing spring.” It too had a stake with a ribbon on it in the center of the highway. It developed that a loss of a 20 foot by 200 foot strip occurred because a later survey showed the assumptions of the purchasers in error.
With this previous experience fresh on his mind, purchaser went to see Mansfield, the realtor. The price was $6,000. The purchaser brought his wife along to see the property and concerning this he testified:
“Q. And would you describe what you did? A. Well, we parked in a little drive in just immediately above the property that we are talking about and so I sat there for a minute or two and discussed it and looked over the flagging and where it had been brushed over. It hadn’t been dozed off but all the timber and the brush and stuff had been took off of there and we seen two or three stakes. I mean, we didn’t get out and really inspect it close, but I walked up and down on the front end of the road from one end to the other and my wife walked a little ways with me up to the first corner and she stayed there and I walked up on the road and come back. We debated approximately how much it would cost to move enough of this mountain hack into this hole there to erect a store building and then still have a few trailer pads in the back too.
“Q. Now, how much — was there any snow on the ground at this time, Mr. Goggans? A. Yes, there was some.
“Q. Was the ground completely covered with snow? A. No. The ground was — in fact in a few places it was bare.
“Q. At this time you spoke of some stakes. Would you relate to the Court which stakes you saw at this time? A. Well, the first stake that I come to was the one that I first seen on the trip that my wife and I was there which I assumed was the corner stake just off the highway.
“Q. Did you see any other stakes, Mr. Goggans? A. Yes, At that time I just casually looked up the hill from this front stake where I was standing and I looked up and looked down *462the other way and there was two or three lath like stakes. They was kind of a thin stake, about an inch wide.
“Q. And you saw stakes both ways that you looked ? A. Well, I wasn’t paying too much attention at the time to the stakes. I noticed the stakes and the ribbon and things around, but I was more interested in figuring out the price and everything on the place at that time.
“Q. And now, did your wife make a thorough investigation at this time or did she just stand on the highway? A. No, she just stood on the highway.
“Q. Did you go on to the property in the vicinity of the stakes or did you also stay on the highway? A. Well, I stayed on the highway too, although I walked down to this corner stake that was immediately off of the highway.
“Q. Well, then, after you got done looking at the property, what did you then do? A. Well, my wife and I got back in the car. In fact, I think my wife got in ahead of me, I don’t know, but we got back in the car and sat there for a few minutes and discussed it and talked about the possibilities and whether we was going to have enough money to go ahead and develop the place on out.
“Q. And did you then return to Libby? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you go to Mr. Mansfield’s office? A. Yes, we did.
“Q. And did you see Mr. Mansfield? A. Yes.
“Q. What was the discussion that took place at that time? A. Well, my first approach was in regard to the price. I asked him if $6,000.00 was the least that the place could be bought for and he said he thought so, and then he wanted to know what my offer would be and I said ‘well, I would give $5,000.00 and take it’ and he said — well, he informed me that he would have to do some checking on it and see, and in the meantime, why we was talking about the staking of the property and if it would be a good deed and title delivered on it.
“Q. And what did Mr. Mansfield say with regard to these stakes? A. Well, he said ‘I am pretty sure that it has been sur*463veyed and that it was all okay but he would cheek. ’ He wanted some time to check on it and see.
“Q. Did he tell you that there were stakes out there ? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you pay any earnest money down at this time? A. Yes. Through that conversation there why we gave him $200.00 earnest money.
“Q. And what was Mr. Mansfield suppose to do then? A. Well he was supposed to check to see if he could get it for $5,-000.00 and find out about the delivery of the title and all, if it was all okay and the survey and see if everything was okay.
‘ ‘ Q. And then that was the end of your conversation basically with Mr. Mansfield? A. Yes.
##*#######
“Q. And what was the discussion at that time? A. Well, we came back to find out if he had gotten all the information that he was supposed to get and if we could get the property for $5,000.00.
“Q. And what did he say? A. Well, he informed us that the least he could get it for was $5,200.00.
“Q. Did he come up with any plat or anything like this relative to the things that he said he was going to do with regard to the boundaries of the property? A. Yes. That was one of the things that he would check at the courthouse and apparently from the way that he talked, that is where he got this plat that he brought.
‘ ‘ Q. And what was this that he gave you ? A. It was the map drawed with the dimensions and things of this property up there.
“Q. How big was this? Was it as big as the sheet that I am holding in my hand? A. It wasn’t quite that big of a sheet of paper.
“Q. It wasn’t as big as this legal length? A. I would say it was as long as this is wide and about half as wide.
“Q. Did this drawing have any surveyor’s name or anything like this on it? A. No.
*464“0. Was it drawn in ink or pencil? A. Well, it was heavy lines.
“Q. You don’t know whether it was drawn in ink or pencil? A. No.
“Q. Bascially what was it ? What did it have on it ? A. Well, it was a map and I was assured that it was a map of that property that I was buying.
“Q. Did it show the boundaries of your property, of the property you are talking about? Did it show the boundaries? A. Well, I am not sure now just how you mean that.
“Q. Well, was it the shape of your property? A. Well, it’s 400 feet long and 200 feet wide on one end and 233 and some tenths on the other end.
"Q. And how wide in the back? A. 400 feet.
“Q. And did this thing that Mr. Mansfield gave you, this drawing, show this property? A. Just exactly?
“Q. Did it give dimensions for each side on that property? A. Yes, it did.
‘ ‘ Q. What did you and your wife do after Mr. Mansfield gave you this drawing? A. Well, I had a 100 foot tape in the car and so we — I told Mr. Mansfield I would go back and we would check it all out and we would be back in a little while and let him know for sure what we was going to do.
‘ ‘ Q. And- did you and your wife, Phoebe, go up to this property- A. Yes, we did.
“Q. And what did you do when you got there? A. Well, we pulled into the same place that we had previously went in the first time and got out and we started at this first stake right there by the Forest Service’s land and then went down the highway back towards Libby here.
“Q. You mean you measured it? A. 400 feet, yes.
‘Q. And did you measure the other three sides of the property? A. Yes.
“Q. And what did the measurements show relative to the dimensions indicated on this drawing ? A. 400 foot on the front, *465200 foot up the downriver end, 400 foot across the back and 233 feet and some tenths. It was just almost right on 33 feet.
“Q. Did these measurements coincide with what was indicated as the distance of the sides in this plan of map that was given you? A. Yes. It was exactly what I was told and what was on the map.
“Q. Did you and your wife then return to Mr. Mansfield’s office? A. Yes.
“Q. What was the discussion that took place at that time then? A. Well, we approached him again on who the engineer was that surveyed it off and he thought Mr. Ninneman was. I said ‘well, if Jack Ninneman surveyed it it’s good enough for me,’ but he wasn’t sure.
“Q. Did you ask him whether or not these stakes were good? A. Yes. He stressed the fact that it was good.
“Q. And did he say that you coxdd rely upon this fact? A. He definitely did.
“Q. Did you tell him about the fact that you and Phoebe had measured these stakes? A. Yes.
“Q. And did you tell him about the results ? A. Yes.
‘ ‘ Q. Did you — was there any discussion between you and Mr. Mansfield about a possible subsequent survey on the premises? A. Just exactly what do you mean by subsequent?
“Q. Did he say anything about who would pay for a subsequent survey on the premises? A. N. They said they had already paid out all that they was going to pay on the survey but at any time in the future that I wanted a different survey it would have to be at my own expense.
‘ ‘ Q. Did he indicate to you the advisability of running a later survey? A. No. He indicated to me it wasn’t necessary at all.
“Q. Did he indicate whether you would be wasting your money or not? A. Yes he did. In fact that was one of the words that he used that it would be wasted money if I got a further survey on it.
*466“Q. And what were the corner stakes on the back? A. The one corner on the left corner — I am not positive whether it was a 2 by 2 or a 1 by 2. It possibly could have been a 1 by 2, and the other stake on the upriver back corner is another kind of an odd looking stake. I mean, you just don’t see it very often.
# * # # * # % #
“Q. Now, during these times that you went out to the property, Mr. Goggans, did Mr. Mansfield ever accompany you? A. No.
“Q. Is there any reason why he didn’t go out with you? Did he tell you any reason why he didn’t go out with you? A. No, he didn’t. It seemed like to me — I am not sure but it seemed to me like he would go with me but he had somebody to meet or something and seeing that I knew where the stakes and everything was and both of us knew where the property was that I was buying, why — well, I don’t know actually why the reason he never did go but he definitely never did go with me.”
The foregoing is the total story. Purchaser, Tom Goggans, testified that he assumed a stake to be a corner stake. Interestingly, here the purchaser Goggans left the witness stand with his counsel stating that he was missing a very important letter he wanted to introduce. The court stated: “It’s understood that the direct examination is not closed until Mr. Goggans is through. Mr. Goggans, is he through?” Counsel for Goggans responded: “Yes, at this time, your Honor, I am through with him.”
Goggans was never recalled to the stand to complete his direct examination. His counsel, after the court denied the offer of proof recited in the majority opinion, stated: “At this time, your Honor, then plaintiffs advise the Court that they rest their case. ’ ’
The defendants had not even cross-examined! Notice, too, that at no time did Mansfield or anyone else point out or indi*467cate the corners or boundaries to Goggans. Goggans assumed some “odd looking stake” to be a eorner.
With this condition of the evidence, the plaintiffs having rested their case, the court was correct in granting a directed verdict.
First of all, it is elementary that the right to cross-examination was effectively foreclosed by the unusual tactics of plaintiffs’ counsel. Thus, the testimony of Tom Goggans should not be considered at all. But, taking it for what it says it still demonstrates conclusively that, consistent with the written contract, the purchasers were not relying on any representations. Further the representations, assuming any were made, were not shown to be untrue. For all that the evidence shows, an “odd looking stake” might be anywhere. The plaintiffs received the same amount of property they bargained for. They simply made their own mistake in its exact location and located some of their improvements in the wrong place.
Thus, even under the law cited by the majority opinion to reverse the trial court, the foregoing fact situation demonstrates the majority is in error and the trial court should be upheld.