DocketNumber: Nos. 19,654—(64)
Citation Numbers: 132 Minn. 361
Judges: Holt
Filed Date: 4/20/1916
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 9/9/2022
The bill of exceptions shows that plaintiff listed for sale a house and lot owned by him in Minneapolis with defendant O’Dean, a real estate agent and trader; that thereafter the latter brought to plaintiff one Gunness who claimed to own or control certain vacant lots in Forman, North Dakota, as a prospective trader. O’Déan represented that he had lived in Forman and knew the lots to be well worth $2,400. Plaintiff considered his property worth $3,200, subject to $1,700 incumbrances. Re
This action was brought in behalf of plaintiff to recover damages against O’Dean and Wagner for misrepresenting the character and value of the lots in Forman which plaintiff received. The bill of exceptions indicates that the jury were fully warranted in finding that Gunness was merely a “stool pigeon” for O’Dean and that the latter practiced
Plaintiff insists that O’Dean was Wagner’s agent, therefore the latter is bound by O’Dean’s misrepresentations; or else that the two were partners and in the partnership business the misrepresentations of one partner makes the individual partners liable, and cites King v. Remington, 36 Minn. 15, 29 N. W. 352, and Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283, 130 N. W. 1110. The difficulty with plaintiff’s theory is that there is no evidence that O’Dean was the agent of Wagner when the false representations were made and the contract for exchange was executed, or that Wagner then or ever had any interest in the lots concerning which the misrepresentations were made, or then knew of or had any intention to become interested with O’Dean as a partner, or otherwise, in the purchase of plaintiff’s property. We are not here dealing with an action to rescind for fraud and to recover the property parted with, but one for damages suffered because plaintiff, through false representations, was induced to accept property which was not what it was represented to be. For all that appears Wagner knew neither the parties nor the property until many days after the deceit was practiced and the agreement was made for exchange. It is perfectly patent that, by entering into a partnership, a person does not become personally liable for the previous deceits of other members of the partnership. Likewise one does not become personally bound as a principal for the fraud of another unless such other, at the time of the commission of the fraud, was in fact the agent or ostensible agent of the one sought to be charged. That Wagner, without any knowlege that plaintiff had received any lots in the deal or that any misrepresentations in respect to lots had been made, acquired by a subsequent agreement an interest in the property plaintiff parted with in the trade cannot make him personally liable for the prior wrong doings of O’Dean.
We perceive no ground for disturbing the ruling of the trial court.
Affirmed.