Court Opinion

ID: 9524693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:55:54.312312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:34.334617
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J., dissenting: The complaint fails to allege ultimate facts entitling the plaintiff to relief in equity or a judgment at law. Rule 31 of the Civil Practice Act requires substantial averments of fact to state a “cause of action at law or in equity.” The alleged misrepresentations attributed to the defendant were as to matters of law. The law is presumed to be equally within the knowledge of all parties. Statements of domestic law though false and fraudulent do not generally constitute actionable fraud. Plaintiffs’ cited cases do not support their position on this point. Plaintiffs say that the mere existence of a transaction under which they acquired property for hundreds of dollars and then conveyed it for $1 “was in itself evidence of fraud.” The principal benefit that accrued to the plaintiffs was that their property became connected with a water distribution system which furnished water to their residences. Furthermore, plaintiffs are chargeable with knowledge equal to that of defendant as to the matters purportedly misrepresented to them. Plaintiffs’ complaint asked that defendant be required to reconvey to them “the property which they paid for” and that plaintiffs have judgment for the sums paid by them. It is obvious that by asking for the return of the amounts paid by them, plaintiffs gave up all right in the property which they paid for. On the other hand, if they wanted the property “reconveyed” to them, plaintiffs could not maintain the action to recover the purchase price. A reading of the complaint makes it clear that plaintiffs did not convey to the defendant and in fact did not own anything except money. They allege that they paid mon'ey to the defendant for the purpose of paying the cost of portions of a water system to be placed in public streets. Plaintiffs do not assert that the defendant overcharged or asked them to pay more than the system would cost or was worth. It is difficult to comprehend how plaintiffs who joined many others in contributing to the water system can maintain what amounts to a partition suit to have certain portions of the system struck off as belonging to them, thus blocking the flow of water to everyone further down in the system. The only misrepresentations ascribed to the defendant are that a utility was operated under Illinois law, that he would not furnish water to the plaintiffs unless they paid a portion of the cost of the system and that he had the right to do this. Plaintiffs do not show how they were damaged. They do not claim that they spent more than the value of what was received, nor do they claim that the consideration received by them is worth less than would be the case if the “misrepresentations” had been true. The complaint does not suggest that but for the “misrepresentations” they would have chosen to do without the water system. The complaint improperly sought class relief. Under the allegations there can be no representative suit. Any contributor to the water system who “rescinds” his deal would have an interest adverse to other “represented” plaintiffs further down in the system, whose water would be thereby literally cut off. The named plaintiffs cannot be given the right to force other persons served by the water system to rescind the transaction by which their homes are furnished water. Defendant stood by his motion to strike when the plaintiffs were seeking to rescind all his transactions with anyone and to impound all his funds. When the plaintiffs presented their motion for judgment at common law the defendant urged that he be given an opportunity to answer the complaint if the issues be thus limited and for a jury trial. The defendant indicated clearly that he desired to controvert plaintiffs’ allegations which did not state any ground for relief or cause of action. Plaintiffs obtained their judgment on the theory that defendant fraudulently misrepresented that he was a utility. Now plaintiffs argue that defendant was a utility and had “monopolistic rights assuring him of superior bargaining power.” Plaintiffs allege that their area was not served by a water utility. There is no allegation that the defendant was the only utility that could have entered the area. There is no apparent reason why the plaintiffs and their neighbors could not have formed a Water Service District (Sec. 213, Ch. 111⅔, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1959), nor does any reason appear why they could not have established a Water Authority had they so desired. (Sec. 223, Ch. 111⅔, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1959.) Plaintiffs argue that they have shown damages because the established principle of utility rate making is that customers pay for the service and should not be called upon to build a utility property. There is no suggestion in the complaint that plaintiffs were called upon to build a utility property but only to pay for portions of the cost of transmission mains to connect their property with the system, which charges are customarily paid by subdividers and developers as a matter of course. The case of Willens v. City of North Lake, 19 Ill.App.2d 316, has no application to the instant ease. There the contractor was told that a specific ordinance required a specific act of payment. No such ordinance existed and there was no reason why the contractor would have made the payment had he known that the ordinance did not exist. For these reasons the judgment should he reversed and the cause remanded with directions to sustain defendant’s motion to strike the complaint and for further proceedings.