Independent Harvester Co. v. Lee

South Dakota Supreme Court

Independent Harvester Co. v. Lee

168 N.W. 28, 40 S.D. 472, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 100

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedJune 11, 1918

DocketFile No. 4301

StatusPublished

This text of 168 N.W. 28 (Independent Harvester Co. v. Lee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Independent Harvester Co. v. Lee, 168 N.W. 28, 40 S.D. 472, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 100 (S.D. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

WHITING, P. J.

Plaintiff had sold to defendant several shares of it®, stock,, taking from defendant several notes in payment therefor. , Defendant had paid some of these notes. This action, was brought to recover on toe unpaid notes. Defendant alleged facts upon which hie might have , sought a rescission of ■toe original transaction, and he ashed judgment for the sums which he haId paid on toe nlotos. He did not plead a rescission. Neither did toe evidence prove more, toan that at one time be •made a demand, upon plaintiff, indicating a desire and, perhaps a present intention to attempt a rescission. The evidence also established .without, .dispute that, after learning facts which re[473]*473ve'aledl the fraud, if any, which had been pradticed upon him, and after making the demand above referred to, he treated the stock as his own and attempted to sell same. It is therefore clear that defend'anit neither rescinded nor was -entitled to' a judgment of rescission. The instructions' of the trial court were to the effect that defendant was entitled to recover if he acted promptly upon discovering the facts upon whíiich- a right to rescind' might be based. The jury returned' a verdict in favor of defendant for all he had pai-d on the nietas. There 'being no rescission proven and! no- proof of facts warranting a judgment of rescission, the trial court should 'have -directed! .a verdict for plaintiff.

The judgment and- -order appealed! from- are reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WHITING, P. J.

Plaintiff had sold to defendant several shares of it®, stock,, taking from defendant several notes in payment therefor. , Defendant had paid some of these notes. This action, was brought to recover on toe unpaid notes. Defendant alleged facts upon which hie might have , sought a rescission of ■toe original transaction, and he ashed judgment for the sums which he haId paid on toe nlotos. He did not plead a rescission. Neither did toe evidence prove more, toan that at one time be •made a demand, upon plaintiff, indicating a desire and, perhaps a present intention to attempt a rescission. The evidence also established .without, .dispute that, after learning facts which re[473]*473ve'aledl the fraud, if any, which had been pradticed upon him, and after making the demand above referred to, he treated the stock as his own and attempted to sell same. It is therefore clear that defend'anit neither rescinded nor was -entitled to' a judgment of rescission. The instructions' of the trial court were to the effect that defendant was entitled to recover if he acted promptly upon discovering the facts upon whíiich- a right to rescind' might be based. The jury returned' a verdict in favor of defendant for all he had pai-d on the nietas. There 'being no rescission proven and! no- proof of facts warranting a judgment of rescission, the trial court should 'have -directed! .a verdict for plaintiff.

The judgment and- -order appealed! from- are reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W. 28, 40 S.D. 472, 1918 S.D. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/independent-harvester-co-v-lee-sd-1918.