Skip to main content
· 5/12/1887

Witherwax v. Riddle

Citations

  • 121 Ill. 140
  • 13 N.E. 545

Syllabus

<p>1. Fraud—in an exchange of lands—inadequacy of price, or inequality of value, as an element. While mere inadequacy of price is not, per se, a ground for setting aside a transfer of property, yet it may be so gross and palpable as to amount, in itself, to proof of fraud; and this, in connection with proof of imposition and misrepresentation on the part of the purchaser and his agents, will be sufficient, in a court of equity, to characterize the transaction as fraudulent.</p> <p>2. In this case, which was upon bill to set aside a contract of exchange of lands, on the ground of fraud, the party complainant, owning one hundred and twenty acres of land, worth $2700 above an incumbrance thereon, and a lot worth $200, ivas induced by the defendant to give the same, and $100 in money and his note for $412, for three hundred and twenty acres of land owned by the defendant in Wisconsin, which was worthless. The defendant represented to him that the Wisconsin land was good land, worth $10 per acre, though he said he had never seen it. The complainant, being desirous of avoiding expense of going to see the defendant’s land, asked him if he could not refer him to some reliable person for information. The defendant referred him to one Lowe, who said he knew the land in the vicinity, and that if the land was improved it was worth $25 per acre, but if unimproved, it was worth $8 or $10 per acre. This proving unsatisfactory, the defendant introduced complainant to one D., who was a man of bad repute and a fugitive from justice, and who represented that he had been on the land; that it was as good as any land in this State, and that the grass-grew on it higher than his head. After the trade was completed, defendant advised the complainant to go and see the land, but he, being' satisfied with the assurances of the defendant and the two persons named, executed the contract, and conveyed his land and lot for the Wisconsin land: Held, that the complainant was entitled to have the con

Judges: Craig

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.