Wines v. Cobb Beal Estate Co.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant is a corporation engaged in the business of locating applicants for timber and homestead claims upon the public lands of the United States. It is alleged that in 7903' the' defendant agreed to locate plaintiff upon a half section of public land, 160 acres of which was tO' be entered as a timber claim, and the residue as a homestead. The consideration of the defendant’s
The defendant demurs to the complaint ttpon the ground that the amount in controversy is not sufficient to give this court jurisdiction.
It does not appear that other lands of better quality were available to the plaintiff for location as homestead and timber lands, nor is there any other way of determining the value of the homestead and timber rights which plaintiff claims have been sacrificed by the alleged false and fraudulent representations. I am of the opinion that there cannot legally be a judgment in this case for an amount necessary to the jurisdiction of the court, notwithstanding the allegation of the plaintiff as to the amount of damages sustained. It is doubtful, in view of the fact that the rules of the land department require a personal, examination of the land taken for timber or agricultural-purposes by the applicant, whether there can be any recovery upon the ground of -misrepresentation by an agent as to the character of the land — whether in such a case a party can be allowed to say that he relied upon the representations of another as to the character of the land located. No opinion, however, is expressed upon this point. The amount for which recovery can be had, if there can be recovery at all, is the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the purpose of securing the locations in question.
The demurrer to the complaint is sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.