BANSKI v. MICHALSKI, 204 Mich. 15-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

(b) Bill of Complaint.

(c) Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" of Plaintiff.

(d) Answer.

(e) Decree.

(f) Authorities Cited by Plaintiff. Brief for Plaintiff.

(g) Authorities Cited by Defendant. Brief for Defendant. LIAN v. HENRY BRADFORD & CO., 209 Mich. 172-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

(b) Declaration.

(c) Plea.

BANSKI v. MICHALSKI, 204 Mich. 15-

(a) Brief Statement of Fact.

A bill of complaint was filed to rescind a land contract for the fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant as to the ownership and value of certain farm property, the quality of the farm soil and the defendant's representations as to the financial conditions of the land contract. From a decree for the plaintiff setting aside and cancelling the contract, the defendant appealed, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

(b) Bill of Complaint.

STATE OF MICHIGAN In the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne-In Chancery

Teofil Banski, and Apolonia Banski,

Plaintiffs, v. Anthony Michalski,

Defendant.

Teofil Banaski and Apolonia Banski, of the City of Detroit in said County of Wayne, plaintiffs, represent unto the court as follows:

1. That as husband and wife on the 21st day of August, A. D. 191C, they purchased on land contract from Jacenty Wrona and Sophia Wrona, his wife, all that certain piece or parcel of land situate and being in the township of Hamtramck, Wayne County, State of Michigan, and described as follows, to-wit: Lots numbered thirteen (13) and fourteen (14) of Race & Haass Subdivision of the westerly one-half (I) of the easterly one-half (i) of quarter section 21, ten thousand acre tract, in the Village of Hamtramck, Wayne County, Michigan, and that the plaintiffs still have the use and possession of the same at the time of filing this bill of complaint. That the said contract and the assignment thereof hereinafter stated are recorded in Liber 1166, page 355, of Deeds, in the Register of Deeds Office for Wayne County. And the plaintiffs hereby make the said contract and assignment, and the records thereof, a part of this bill of complaint, and hereby refer to them for greater certainty. That the said property consists of two distinct lots and a one-family dwelling house on one of the lots. Plaintiffs further say that the said property was purchased by them for the sum of forty-five hundred ($4,500.00) dollars; that they have thus far paid on the land contract for this property the sum of eighteen hundred fifty ($1,850.00) dollars; and that its present value amounts to fifty-two hundred ($5,200.00) dollars, and that the same has been occupied as a homestead by the said plaintiffs ever since the date of purchase.

2. Plaintiffs further represent that on or about the 17th day of June, A. D. 1917, the said defendant, Anthony Michalski, came to them and represented himself to be the owner of a forty (40) acre tract of farm land lying and being situate in the township of Casco, St. Clair County, State of Michigan, more particularly described as the west half of the east half of the northwest quarter of section four (4), in town four north of range fifteen east, containing forty acres more or less; and that the said Anthony Michalski then and there proposed to plaintiffs an exchange of his said farm property on the plaintiff's property described above. And the plaintiffs further represent that neither of them had or has any knowledge of the quality of farm soil or its adaptability for farming purposes, and so informed the said defendant Anthony Michalski.

3. Plaintiffs further represent that the said Anthony Michalski then and there informed them that the 6aid farm land so owned by him as above described was formerly owned by his father and that his said father had paid for the said farm the sum of four thousand four hundred ($4,400.00) dollars, the said farm was mortgaged for the sum of two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars, and that there was a balance due on said farm the sum of two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars; that the soil was rich and fertile and that it was the best soil to be found for raising crops and for general farming purposes. The plaintiffs further state that they believed the representations so made to them by the said Anthony Michalski to be true and relied upon his honesty and truthfulness in making these representations, and so informed him, and that the said Anthony Michalski then and there deposited the sum of one hundred ($100.00) dollars with plaintiff Teofil Banski, as evidence of good faith, and which the plaintiffs now allege was only a trick and scheme to allay any suspicions these plaintiffs might have regarding the honesty and veracity of the said Anthony Michalski.

4. And the plaintiffs further represent that thereafter, on Sunday, June 17, 1917, the said Anthony Michalski with two other real estate agents, named Adam Buczyniski and W. Rybicki, friends of the said Anthony Michalski, induced plaintiffs to take an automobile ride with them to the said farm to look over the same. That the plaintiffs did go with them to the said farm in the said automobile and that on the way to the said farm, the said Anthony Michalski and his said two friends uncovered a quart of whisky and induced this plaintiff Toefil Banski to drink about one-third of this quantity by the time they looked at the farm. Plaintiffs further say that while on this trip they were completely under the influence of the said Anthony Michalski and his said friends and that they had no opportunity then and there to make an independent investigation relative to the value of the said farm, and when plaintiffs requested an opportunity to visit the owner of the adjoining farm to ascertain the value of the farm he was buying, the said Anthony Michalski and his friends stated to him that it would be useless to do so as they did not know who the owner of the adjoining farm was, and then and there they again assured them that the farm was worth the money as above stated.