Oliver v. Bennett

This was an action to recover the purchase-money paid on the sale of certain interests in Pennsylvania oil lands, on the alleged ground of a rescission of the sale, because of fraudulent representations inducing the purchase. The alleged fraudulent representations were, that defendants were prepared to, and were about to, put down eight wells upon the premises, and for that purpose had then eight engines ready for use, and that the derricks to be used were already erected, and that defendants, as a further inducement, agreed to put down said eight wells. The representations proved were made by defendant Bennett. No evidence was given on the trial to show that defendants were partners with him in the transaction, but it appeared that, as a condition for an adjournment, defendants’ counsel admitted such partnership. Held, that the admission, whether the attorney was authorized to appear for all the defendants or not, so far established the fact of the partnership that it could not thereafter be contested in the action. (Townsend v. Masterson, 15 N. Y., 587; Oaldey v. Aspmwall, 2 Sand. [S. C.], 7.) It was proved upon the trial and found by the referee that, in addition to the representations set forth in the complaint, Bennett also falsely represented that the land was good oil land. The finding was claimed to be erroneous because there was no such allegation in the complaint. Held, that it was not erroneous because no proper objections, and, exceptions to the evidence were taken; also, that under the Code the .evidence and findings were proper, although the fact was not specifically alleged. It was claimed by defendants’ counsel that the representations set forth in the complaint were, in substance, nothing but promises that certain things should be done. Held, that the complaint contained sufficient allegations of false representations of facts, and defendants were not aided by the fact that as a further inducement they promised to put down the wells.