Berhenke v. Penfield

Citations

• 94 Kan. 532
• 146 P. 1187
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sale — Patent-right Territory — Fraud and Misrepresentations — Right of Recovery. The petition set forth a scheme entered into ky the three defendants to induce the plaintiff to pay one-half of $2275 for certain patent-right tenitory by falsely pretending to him that one of them was to pay the other half of such sum and engage with him in the joint adventure, and that the patented article and the right to sell in the territory covered by the transaction were very valuable; that the latter were of no value and the money procured of the plaintiff was in fact divided between the three defendants, neither paying a like sum nor any part thereof. The court eliminated the question of value on account of the statute of limitations, but permitted the plaintiff to proceed on the remainder of the charge of fraud. Held, proper.</p> <p>2. Same — Trial—Refusal of Requested Instructions- — -Not Error. , When the issues are fairly and correctly covered by the instructions given the refusal of requested instructions is not error.</p> <p>3. Same — No Estoppel to a Recovery. Under the circumstances described in the first paragraph it is not essential to a recovery that the plaintiff should have made a reasonable effort to realize on his investment.</p> <p>4. Special Questions — Refusal to Stibmit Not Error. It is not error to refuse special questions which call for answers touching only immaterial matters.</p>