Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Minn. 262

Stickney v. Jordan

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 21, 1891

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1891-10-21

Plaintiff brought this action to the district court for Washington county, alleging in his complaint the making by defendants to himself of a promissory note for $6,000, of which he is owner and holder and which is past due and unpaid; that the note was given for the full price of certain lands conveyed by plaintiff to defendant David C. G-aslin, by warranty deed; that at the time of the conveyance plaintiff believed that he had full and absolute title to the lands, but it…

Relies on Whitney v. . Allaire · Peabody v. Phelps · Redding v. Godwin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1891-10-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1955

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

501891190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Gilfillan, C. J.1

¶1Whether an action for fraudulent representations as to the title, whereby one is induced to purchase real estate, may be maintained by the grantee against the grantor, is, upon the decided cases, not entirely free from doubt. See Whitney v. Allaire, *2641 N. Y. 305; Claggett v. Crall, 12 Kan. 393; Peabody v. Phelps, 9 Cal. 213. It would hardly seem that an action for damages for the deceit would lie where there are express covenants as to title, for in such case the .parties have, by their contract, fixed their respective rights and liabilities in the event of a failure of title. . It is not necessary in this ease to decide that question, for, conceding that the defendant, instead of relying on the covenants, may maintain the counterclaim based on the alleged deceit, still the answer does not show damages greater than the part of the purchase price of the land which the complaint remits on account of the failure of title to an undivided half. The plaintiff claims no more than he is entitled to, for aught that appears in the answer. Where a party, complaining that he was induced by deceit to purchase property, waives his right to rescind, elects to keep what he got by the purchase, and seeke damages for having been fraudulently induced to make it, the doctrine of this court is that the measure of damages is the difference between the values of what he was so induced to part with and what he got. Reynolds v. Franklin, 44 Minn. 30, (46 N. W. Rep. 139;) Redding v. Godwin, 44 Minn. 355, (46 N. W. Rep. 563;) Alden v. Wright, supra, p. 225. In this case the damages would be the difference between the purchase price of the land and the value of the undivided half, to which defendant, as is conceded, got the title. The value of the land is not alleged. The value of the undivided half may have been much greater — indeed, it may be inferred from the answer that it was much greater — than the half of the purchase price for which the complaint demands judgment.

¶2Order affirmed.

¶3Dickinson, J., took no part in the decision.

/47/minn/262 · .json · Public domain