Kerr v. Steman

33 N.W. 654, 72 Iowa 241
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided June 28, 1887·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Adams, Ch. J.

The petition shows clearly enough that the plaintiff was at one time the owner of certain real estate, consisting of a town lot and an undivided third of a tract of forty acres; that she employed the defendant to make an exchange of the same for other property; that he reported that he had negotiated an exchange, stating the terms, and she executed the required conveyances. The petition further [242]*242states that the defendant made a false report, with intent to cheat and defraud her; but wherein the same was false does not appear. She should have set out in what the falsity consisted, in order that the defendant might know what he should come prepared to disprove. The doctrine is elementary that whoever sets up a fraud must do more than allege fraud in general and abstract terms. lie must set out the specific facts in which the fraud consists. The petition in this case seems to us to be clearly insufficient, and we think that the court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s motion for a more specific statement.

AFFIRMED.

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

Kerr v. Steman, 33 N.W. 654, 72 Iowa 241 (iowa 1887).

33 N.W. 654 (Kerr v. Steman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

POSTAL FINANCE COMPANY v. Langton
166 N.W.2d 806 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1969)
New York Life Insurance v. Clemens
297 N.W. 253 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1941)
Poole v. Poole
265 N.W. 653 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1936)
In Re Estate of Kessler
239 N.W. 555 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1931)
Pease v. Citizens State Bank
228 N.W. 83 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1929)
Nawahie ex rel. Lightfoot v. Peterson
24 Haw. 558 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1918)
Huber v. St. Joseph's Hospital
83 P. 768 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1905)