Egan v. Thorpe Bros.
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1996, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Boubelik v. Liberty State Bank (Minn. 1996)
- Hafner v. Hafner (Minn. 1952)
- Williams v. Dow Chemical Co. (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Action to recover the purchase price of a mortgage bought of the defendant. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial plaintiff appeals.
Defendant is a general real estate and mortgage company. In 1924 plaintiff purchased from the defendant a mortgage on property described therein as lot three (3), block three (3), Burnham Wood, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Plaintiff, previous to this sale, had dealt with defendant for many years and had bought from it several mortgages. Defendant had sent plaintiff a list of mortgages that it had for sale, the mortgage here in question being listed thereon at $500. Plaintiff went to the offices of defendant, where he interviewed a clerk. He contends that he asked the clerk what the size and description of the property was, that the clerk, instead of answering this question, told him that the lot was vacant property. He then paid $500 for the mortgage. As a matter of fact the lot was trapezoidal in form. It had a 60-foot frontage on Burnham Boulevard, was something over 125 feet in depth, and was only 20 feet in width at the back. It is plaintiff’s contention that the lot was misrepresented to him by the defendant’s clerk when he failed to disclose the form of the lot; that he believed that the lot was rectangular in shape; and that had the clerk disclosed to him, in answer to his query, that the mortgage covered a lot of the character here described, he would not have purchased it. Plaintiff alleges that he ivas not apprised of the shape of the lot until 1933.
Plaintiff’s brief contains the well-recognized rules applicable to fraud perpetrated by silence. We think they are not here applicable. An examination of the record discloses no evidence that would have justified the trial court in submitting the case to a jury. Egan may have thought that the lot Avas rectangular in form, but nothing that Avas said or done by defendant led him to this conclusion.
We cannot spell out of the record any confidential relation between plaintiff and defendant that would require defendant to ascertain and disclose the shape of the lot. That fact Avas easily ascertainable by either party.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.