Robins v. Hope

Sharpstein, J.: The gravamen of the complaint is, that the plaintiffs were induced to convey, without consideration, their interests in certain real estate to one Thomas Hope, the testator of the defendants, by reason of its being falsely represented by the agents of said Hope to the plaintiffs that they had no valid claim or title to said real estate and that said Hope had a perfect title thereto, and that he desired a deed from them merely confirmatory of one previously executed by their mother, as their guardian, to him, which the plaintiffs supposed, at the time of making their said conveyance and for several years thereafter, and which the agents of said Hope assured them, was a valid deed, and that all their right, title, interest, and claim in and to said real estate had thereby been effectually transferred to said Hope; and that, relying upon said representations, the plaintiffs executed the deed which they now seek to avoid, without taking any independent counsel or advice, or having it read (they could not read it), or its contents explained to them.

The misrepresentation complained of was as to the title of the plaintiffs to the premises which they were induced to convey, under the impression that they had no title thereto, and we understand the rule to be, as stated by the learned judge who sustained a demurrer to this complaint, that “ a person is conclusively presumed to know the state of his own title to real property. This is always the case where the party deals with a stranger, as in the present case. No misrepresentations made by Hope or his agents, therefore, as to the proceedings in probate concerning plaintiffs’ title, or as to the state of their title in any respect, could have had the effect of misleading them.” And the learned counsel for the appellants, if we rightly apprehend his position, concedes the rule to be as above stated.

[496]“ But this rule,” he insists, “ applies only where parties deal at arm’s length, and where the means of information are equally open to both. It cannot be invoked where confidential relations exist between the parties.”

It will thus be seen that it is only upon the question of the relations which existed between the parties, that the Court below and the learned counsel for the appellants differ. The Court held that the relation of Hope to the appellants was that of a stranger. The counsel insists, if we do not mistake his position, that conceding that to be so, the deed was procured through the misrepresentations of Hope’s agents, between whom and the appellants confidential relations did exist, and the transaction must therefore be viewed in the same light as it would be if such relations had existed between Hope and the appellants, and he, instead of said agents, had made the misrepresentations complained of. Whether under the maxim, qid facit per alium facit per se, a principal must be held to adopt the relations which exist between his agent and those with whom he is transacting business through such agent, may well be doubted. But does it appear that confidential relations did exist between Hope’s agents and the appellants? One of those agents was Albert Packard, a practicing lawyer, and he, some three or four weeks prior to the execution of the deed which the appellants seek to avoid, “visited Z. Branch, the father of F. Branch, then and now being the husband of the said plaintiff, Conception Branch, at their place of residence in the County of San Luis Obispo, and also said Encarnación (the mother of the plaintiffs), all of whose confidence he possessed to an almost unlimited extent, and over whom he exercised a great influence,” and then and there made the misrepresentations complained of, to the persons above named, who repeated them to the plaintiffs. Wow it is alleged that Z. Branch and F. Branch—one the father-in-law and the other the husband of one of the plaintiffs (four of the five plaintiffs are married women) —and the mother of the plaintiffs, had almost unlimited confidence in said Packard, and that he exercised great influence over them. Does that show that a confidential relation existed between Packard and the appellants, or even between him and the three persons to whom he directly made the alleged misrep