Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Wis. 397

Bergeron v. Miles

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 1894

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1894-10-23

One McDonough had an option to purchase certain lands belonging to one Mrs. Putnam, for the sum of $3,000. The defendant induced the plaintiff to purchase with him an undivided one-half of the lands. Each was to pay one half of the purchase price thereof, and to hold the same as equal joint owners. The defendant represented to the plaintiff that the price of the lands was $8,000, and that the lands were worth that price.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“On the question whether the relation of the parties was such that the deceit practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant will support the action the case very much resembles Grant v. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668 . To make the deceit actionable, it is not necessary that the relation of the parties to each other shall be that of partners or tenants in common. Other relations Avhieh require and inspire trust and confidence to be reposed by the party deceived in the other may be sufficient to bring the case within the rule, as stated in Grant v. Hardy. . . . If the defendant was under no obligation to the plaintiff to tell him all he knew about the land, he was at least under obligation not to deceive him by false statements with reference to it or the price at which it was to be bought by them. This he did, and so obtained from him much more than plaintiff’s share of the price. It is not denied that the defendant purposely deceived the plaintiff as to the purchase price of the land. Plaintiff supposed that the price to be paid was $8,000. It was in truth only $3,000. As it was represented to plaintiff, his share of the price was $4,000. In truth his share of the price was only $1,500. He gave to the defendant on his representation $2,500 more than his share of the price and more than he would have given if the defendant had not deceived him. Yet it is argued that this deceit is not actionable because it is said the plaintiff was not damaged by it. This contention is based upon the assum”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Thorp v. Hough

Relies on Grant v. Hardy

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-10-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1933

18 state decisions — followed in 10 states

5018941900191019201930decided

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 →

NewMAN, J.

¶1On the question whether the relation of the parties was such that the deceit practiced upon the plaintiff by the defendant will support the action the case very much resembles Grant v. Hardy, 33 Wis. 668. To make the deceit actionable, it is not necessary that the relation of the parties to each other shall be that of partners or tenants in common. Other relations wffiich require and inspire trust and confidence to be reposed by the party deceived in the other may be sufficient to bring the case within the rule, as stated in Grant v. Hardy on page 674. If the defendant was under no obligation to the plaintiff to tell him all he knew about the land, he was at least under obligation not to deceive .him by false statements wfith reference to it or the price at which it was to be bought by them. This he did, and so obtained from him much more than plaintiff’s share of the price.

¶2It is not denied that the defendant purposely deceived the plaintiff as to the purchase price of the land. Plaintiff supposed that the price to be paid was $8,000. It was, in truth, only $3,000. As it was represented to plaintiff, his share of the price was $4,000. In truth, his share of the *399price was only $1,500. ITe gave to the defendant, on his representation, $2,500 more than his share of the price and more than he would have given' if the defendant had not deceived him. Yet it is argued that this deceit is not actionable, because, it is said, the plaintiff was not damaged by it. This contention is based upon the assumed fact that the bargain was a good one at the price of $8,000. It must be evident that it would have been'a better bargain at the price of $3,000. The plaintiff was entitled to his share of the full profit of the bargain: He was entitled to all the profit there was in the bargain by paying only his share of the price. Whatever he has paid more than his share of the price, by so much is the value of his bargain diminished. This is damage. It is damage of which the deceit is the cause. The plaintiff paid $2,500 more than his share of the price. The judgment of the circuit court is right, and is affirmed.

¶3By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.

/88/wis/397 · .json · Public domain