Black v. Bringhurst

WILSON, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment for damages for fraud in the sale of real property to respondent. The action was brought against Bringhurst and Clanton, the appellants, and Gagnon, Duelos, Evans and Hamilton. Judgment went against all except Evans and Hamilton, who were not served with process. Gagnon and Duelos have not appealed.

Because of appellants ’ argument that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment against them—that the evidence does not connect them with the fraud—the facts will be stated with more particularity than would otherwise be necessary. At some time prior to the transactions complained of here the respondent purchased a contract for the sale of a lot in Van Nuys from a man who had bought the same through Gagnon, one of the defendants here. She continued to make payments on the contract at Gagnon’s office for about a year. Upon the occasion of one of the payments she was followed from Gagnon’s office by Evans, who endeavored to persuade her to purchase additional property from Gagnon, representing that he could make her a large profit within a

[713]

short time. Later Evans and Hamilton went to her home and after making further inducements to her persuaded her to go to Gagnon’s office, where Duelos, who was Gagnon’s office manager, concurred in all that Evans and Hamilton had said to her. As a result she was prevailed upon to purchase other property at Van Nuys from Gagnon.

The appellants, Bringhurst and Clanton, who owned adjoining tracts of acreage near Artesia, each.subdivided his property into small building lots. After an unsuccessful selling campaign they entered into a contract with Gagnon giving the latter an option to purchase and the exclusive right to sell the property and agreeing to issue contracts to Gagnon, or his assignees, for lots purchased or sold by him, upon receiving a small cash payment. Subsequently to the respondent’s last purchase of Van Nuys property Evans and Hamilton took her to see the Artesia property. There they all engaged in a conversation with Bringhurst, who at first stated that all of the tract was sold, but later referred to four lots that might be obtained. These are a part of the property which respondent purchased. While Bringhurst and Clanton severally owned their respective subdivisions, Clanton allowed Bringhurst, effectively, if not factually, to look after the sales in both tracts, to obtain bank statements of money received from Gagnon’s operations, and generally to attend to the business of both. These and many other facts and circumstances appearing in the record are sufficient to connect the appellants with Gagnon as principals and agent, and the connection between Gagnon, Duelos, Evans and Hamilton is beyond question. Additionally, Bringhurst brought an action against Gagnon for an accounting of sales made by the latter under the contract between them and obtained a judgment for $3,000 and for cancellation of the contract. The evidence to a great extent is uncontradicted, and though conflicting as to some matters, fully sustains the foregoing facts. Gagnon unquestionably was the agent of appellants, Duelos was Gag-non’s office manager, Evans’ statements to the respondent were confirmed by Duelos, and Evans and Hamilton operated jointly. Bringhurst’s statements made to respondent while they were on the subdivision aided materially in her deception. It is not necessary to recount the fraudulent statements made to respondent. It is sufficient to say that the fraud was