¶1(dissenting in part.) As this transaction was represented to, and1 understood by, plaintiff, no -part of the $325 was to pay defendants for their services in procuring the so-called relinquishment. They understood the $325 was the amount which the holder of the filing- charged for the relinquishment. It follows that -it was the understanding on the part of plaintiff that -the $100 covered not merely defendants’ charges for services which they led plaintiff to believe they were rendering him' in negotiating for and procuring the so-called relinquishment. The decision in this case should therefore be based upon the proposition that there was fraud in this transaction not only as to $325 of the consideration' paid, but also' as to the remaining $100.
39 S.D. 628
Trautman v. Coffman
Decided January 18, 1918
South Dakota Supreme Court · decided 1918-01-18
Hon. Wiijjam Wiooiamson, Judge. Action 'by Herbert -S. Trautman, against Mart Coffman and Ohas. Owen, co-partners as Coffman & Owen, to recover moneys paid by plaintiff to defendants' for securing a government homestead filing and a pretended reliniqiuishment of a former entry thereon. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. (2) To point two of the opinion, Respondent cited: 31 Cyc. 1498-1499; ITindle v. Holcomb, 75 Pac. 873.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Judgment modified, and as modified, affirmed · Decided 1918-01-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 2000
1 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →