Merwin v. Arbuckle

Citations

• 81 Ill. 501

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud—-fraudulent representations by the vendor of land. To render a representation fraudulent, it must not only be false, but the party making it must know it to be such. To recover in an action for deceit, the statement must be untrue, the party making it must know it to be false, and the person seeking to recover must have relied on the statement as true, and have been induced to act upon it, and the statement must be in relation to a matter material to the transaction. As a general rule, representations as to mere value, although known to be false, will not constitute fraud.</p> <p>3. An instruction which requires the jury to find fraudulent representations as to the kind and quality of land sold, and also as to its value, or what the vendor paid for it, is one that can not injure the vendor in a suit for fraud and deceit. If in the alternative as to the proof of the falsity of the representations, it would present a different question.</p> <p>3. Same—instruction as involving scientw. An instruction that representations must be fraudulently made to authorize a recovery, is, in substance, that they must be false, and known to be such by the party making them.</p> <p>4. Former decision. The case of Mitchell v. McDougall, 62 Ill. 498, omits to state that the party making false representations must have known them to be false, for the reason that he had been on the land, and must have known they were false, and was not intended to change the rule as previously announced.</p> <p>5. Evidence—representations of third party. In a suit against the vendor of land, to recover on the ground of false and fraudulent representations made by him as to the nature and quality of the land, where the vendor has never seen the land, it is competent for him to prove that the person from whom he purchased made similar representations to him, as tending to show the statements made by him were not recklessly made, and without any ground of belief in their truth.</p>