Judd v. Walker
114 S.W. 979, 215 Mo. 312, 1908 Mo. LEXIS 282 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser of land may maintain an action for fraud and deceit against a seller for a material misrepresentation of acreage, even if the purchaser viewed the property, because a buyer has a right to rely on the seller's positive assertions of fact and is under no duty to conduct a survey to verify them.
Facts:
- Naxera owned two tracts of land in Pike County, Illinois, and hired Walker as his agent to sell them.
- Judd, through his agent Bourland, negotiated with Walker to purchase the land.
- Walker positively represented to Bourland that the combined tracts contained 178 acres, and the purchase price was set at $40 per acre.
- Bourland, on behalf of Judd, relied on Walker's representation of the acreage when agreeing to the purchase.
- Both Naxera and Walker knew the land did not contain 178 acres; Naxera believed he owned only 160 acres.
- To persuade Naxera to sign a deed for 178 acres, Walker provided Naxera with a written agreement to hold him harmless from any liability arising from the acreage discrepancy.
- Naxera executed the deed conveying 178 acres to Judd, and Judd paid the full purchase price based on that acreage.
- A subsequent survey revealed that the property actually contained only 153.24 acres, a shortage of 24.76 acres.
Procedural Posture:
- Judd sued Naxera and Walker for fraud and deceit in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas, a trial court.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court granted a peremptory instruction (directed verdict) in favor of defendants Naxera and Walker.
- Judd, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.
- The St. Louis Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Finding its decision in conflict with a prior holding from the Kansas City Court of Appeals, the St. Louis Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court of Missouri for final determination.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a seller's positive and false representation as to the acreage of a parcel of land, which the buyer relies upon, constitute actionable fraud even if the buyer viewed the land and had the means to ascertain the true acreage?
Opinions:
Majority - Lamm, J.
Yes, a seller's positive and false representation as to acreage constitutes actionable fraud even if the buyer viewed the land. The court held that a statement regarding the quantity of land is a statement of fact, not opinion, and a buyer is entitled to rely on it. The doctrine of caveat emptor does not apply where there is a positive misrepresentation of a material fact because a deficiency in acreage is not a patent defect discoverable by ordinary observation during a viewing. The law does not require a buyer to assume a seller is lying and commission a survey to verify a factual claim. To allow a fraudulent seller to escape liability by arguing the buyer was negligent in trusting them would be unjust and reward deceit.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the defense of 'caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware) in cases of fraudulent misrepresentation in real estate transactions. It establishes a clear precedent that a buyer's reliance on a seller's specific, factual assertions, such as acreage, is generally reasonable. The ruling shifts the legal risk from the defrauded buyer to the fraudulent seller, holding that a seller cannot use the buyer's failure to investigate (e.g., by not getting a survey) as a shield for their own intentional deceit. This strengthens buyer protections and distinguishes between patent defects (obvious to the senses) and latent information (like precise acreage) for which reliance on the seller is permissible.
