# Moore v. Turner

> West Virginia Supreme Court · June 23, 1952 · 137 W. Va. 299

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845742

## Case

- **Full name:** Myrtle J. Moore v. Edgar D. Turner
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 23, 1952
- **Citations:** 137 W. Va. 299; 71 S.E.2d 342
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lovins
- **Judges:** Haymond, Lovins, Lo-Vins
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845742

## Opinion text

Lovins, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result. I think the trial court erred in rejecting evidence of the respective values of the Turner and Brand Lands. As stated in the court’s opinion, the plaintiff offered to show that the coal in the Brand Tracts was of greater value per acre than the coal in the Turner lands. The evidence, upon objection of defendant, was rejected.
If the coal in the Brand Tracts was actually worth $400.00 per acre and the actual value of the coal in the Turner Tract was $300.00 per acre, that fact rendered the sale of the Brand lands immaterial to the defendant Turner. The plaintiff therefore did not withhold information concerning a material matter which affected the defendant’s decision to sell his lands. For that reason, I think a comparison of the values of the Brand and Turner lands would have a direct bearing upon the good faith of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant.
Of course, if the Turner and Brand tracts were of approximately the same value and the Brand tracts were sold for a higher price per acre than the Turner lands, the information as to the respective prices per acre was material and should have been disclosed by the plaintiff to the defendant.
In my opinion the rejection of the above mentioned evidence constitutes another ground for setting aside the verdict of the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845742. Public record. Not legal advice.