Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Utah (Volume 14)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897. Excerpt: ... work on Measure of Damages (8th Ed., vol. 3, 10271029), lays down the general rule of damages in cases of this character as follows: In such actions, as in actions for fraud in the sale of chattels, it has usually been held that the measure of damages is the difference in value between the land as it would have been if as represented and as it actually was at the time of the sale. Judge Sutherland says: In case of sales, where there is a fraudulently false representation of quantity, quality, or title, the measure of damages is the difference in value between that which is actual, and that which is represented to exist. 3 Suth. Dam. (1st Ed.) pp. 589-592. In Drew v. Beall, 62 1ll. 165, the court held that: In case of an exchange of land, wherein the defendant was fraudulently induced to make the exchange for other property, the plaintiff was entitled to have a tract of land as it was represented to be; and, if he did not get it, the measure of damages was the difference between the actual value of the land and the value of the same if it had been such as it was represented to be. The rule is well established that in an action for fraud and deceit in the sale or exchange of real estate the measure of damages is the difference between the actual value of the land as it would have been if as represented and as it actually was. Stiles v. White, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 356; Brew v. Beall, 62 1ll. 164; Matlock v. Reppy, (Ark.) 14 S. W. 546; Griffing v. Diller, (Sup.) 21 N. Y. Supp. 407; Lynch v. Trust Co., 18 Fed. 486; Antle v. Sexton, (1ll. Sup.) 27 N. E. 691; Wright v. Roach, 57 Me. 600; Hcrefort v. Cramer, 7 Colo. 483; 3 Sedg. Meas. Dam. 1027-1029; Page v. Wells, 37 Mich. 4l5; Vailf. Reynolds, 118 N. Y. 297; Stevens v. Allen, 51 Kas....