## Facts

- Naxera owned two tracts of farm land and authorized Walker to sell them.
- Judd, an out-of-state purchaser, hired Bourland as his agent to locate and buy farm land; neither Judd nor Bourland knew the local properties.
- Walker told Bourland that the two tracts contained 80 acres and 98 acres, totaling 178 acres, and caused Naxera to execute a deed purporting to convey 178 acres to Judd.
- Judd paid more than $1,000 for the land based on those specific acreage representations.
- A later survey showed Judd received only about 153 acres, leaving an approximate 25-acre deficiency.
- Judd sued Walker and Naxera for fraud and deceit based on the alleged knowing, material misstatements of acreage and reliance by Judd through Bourland.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of specific, knowing misrepresentations of acreage was sufficient to submit a fraud claim to the jury rather than dispose of the case by directed verdict.
2. Whether *caveat emptor* bars a fraud claim when the buyer (or the buyer’s agent) had an opportunity to view or inspect the land.
3. Whether Bourland, the buyer’s purchasing agent, was a necessary or indispensable party to the fraud action.
4. Whether Naxera, as principal, could be held liable for Walker’s fraud where Naxera accepted the benefits of the sale.

## Decision

- The court held the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to allow a jury to decide fraud and that the directed verdict for defendants was improper.
- The court held *caveat emptor* did not shield a seller or selling agent who makes affirmative, material, and knowingly false representations of acreage intended to induce reliance.
- The court held Bourland was not a necessary party because he acted only as Judd’s agent and had no ownership or independent interest in the land or claim.
- The court held Naxera could be liable because he ratified Walker’s conduct by accepting the benefits of the transaction.
- The judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A seller (or selling agent) may be liable for fraud for a positive misrepresentation of acreage when the representation is material, knowingly false, intended to induce the purchase, and relied upon to the buyer’s detriment.
- The opportunity to inspect or view the property does not bar recovery for deliberate misstatements of material fact, including acreage.
- A principal who accepts the benefits of a transaction may ratify an agent’s fraudulent conduct and be held liable for it.
- A buyer’s agent who acted solely as an intermediary, without an independent ownership interest or claim, is not an indispensable party to the buyer’s fraud action.
- Fraud is not presumed; submission to a jury requires evidence that rises above mere suspicion.

## Conclusion

The court required a new trial because the buyer presented evidence of actionable, knowing acreage misrepresentations that a jury could credit, and neither *caveat emptor* nor the absence of the buyer’s agent from the lawsuit defeated the claims against the selling agent or the principal who accepted the sale’s benefits.


Judd v. Walker, 215 Mo. 312 (Mo. 1908)