[DOWNLOAD] "Frank B. Cooke and Doris E. Cooke V." by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10860 * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Frank B. Cooke and Doris E. Cooke V.
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10860
- Release Date : January 17, 1972
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
Plaintiffs-Respondents Cooke entered into an agreement for the sale of their Camas Prairie ranch property with defendants-appellants
Mull as purchasers and defendant-appellant Iverson as real estate agent. The Cookes brought an action against defendants-appellants
alleging misrepresentation in the consideration to be received by the Cookes. The District Court found in favor of the Cookes
and entered judgment awarding damages. The Mulls also claimed misrepresentation on the part of the Cookes and sought damages
therefor. The District Court found in favor of the Cookes and entered judgment denying relief to the Mulls. Defendants Mulls
and Iverson have appealed from both portions of that judgment. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all parts. We consider first the less complicated portion of this appeal which involves the claim of Defendants Mull that Plaintiffs
Cooke had misrepresented the Cookes' ranch property which resulted in pecuniary damage to the Mulls. The Mulls claimed that
the Cookes had misrepresented the amount of water on the ranch and also the extent of infestation of weeds on that property.
The District Court found against the Mulls in both regards and discussed at length the various reasons why such contentions
were not supported by the evidence. We find it necessary only to point out that the Mulls failed to introduce any proof of
damages resulting from the alleged misrepresentations, assuming that they were in fact made by the Cookes. In an action or
claim for monetary damages occasioned by fraud a showing of actual pecuniary damage must be made. Nab v. Hills, 92 Idaho 877,
452 P.2d 981 (1969). Defendants Mull principally claimed that they had sustained damages resulting from an over abundance
of weeds such as morning-glory, upon the ranch in question. The evidence indicated that weeds such as morning-glory are prevalent
in the Camas Prairie area wherein the ranch is located. No evidence indicated that the amount of weeds on the ranch in question
was more than normal for a ranch in the Camas Prairie area. It was further shown the Defendants Mull had knowledge of farming
in the Camas Prairie region and were experienced farmers. Defendants attempted to introduce an exhibit purporting to show
certain damages from such weeds. That exhibit was, however, only partially admitted and such portion as was admitted showed
only that a certain amount of weed killer was administered on the property during certain years. There was no showing that
such weeds as did exist caused any damage to the defendants, nor was there any showing on the part of the defendants that
they had the right to rely on such statements as plaintiffs may have made. Walker v. Nunnenkamp, 84 Idaho 485, 373 P.2d 559
(1962); King v. H. J. McNeel Inc., 94 Idaho 444, 489 P.2d 1324 (1971). In any event such showing as was made by the defendants
Mull was not "clear and convincing" proof as is required for the establishment of fraud. Gillingham v. Stadler, 93 Idaho 874,
477 P.2d 497 (1970); C. I. T. Corporation v. Hess, 88 Idaho 1, 395 P.2d 471 (1964).