Mortimer v. Young

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages- alleged to have been caused by the fraud of defendants Rodes and Young. The trial court rendered judgment of nonsuit in favor of defendant Young and a jury returned a verdict against defendant Rodes in the sum of $3,210. Thereafter the court granted the motion of defendant Rodes for a new trial “on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence and other grounds”. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment and nonsuit and from the order granting a new trial.

The action was tried upon the second cause of action of the complaint, wherein it is alleged that plaintiff was the owner of a parcel of real estate in Inglewood of the value of $4,000; that defendant Young was the owner of a rooming house on Bronson Avenue in the city of Los Angeles which had been listed for sale with Rodes as the agent of Young for the full purchase price of $9,000 out of which Young agreed to pay Rodes a commission; that Rodes falsely stated to plaintiff that the owner of the Bronson Avenue property would not take less than $12,000 for the premises; that the actual value of the Bronson Avenue property was only $6,000 and that the two defendants conspired to deceive and defraud plaintiff; that defendant Rodes assured plaintiff that the Bronson Avenue property was yielding a monthly income of $200 per month whereas it was yielding less than $75 per month; that an exchange of the two properties was effected whereby plaintiff paid for the Bronson Avenue property the sum of $12,000,

[166]

one-haM in cash and one-half by a note and trust deed on the Bronson Avenue property.

It appears from the evidence that three brokers were involved in the transaction. These brokers were defendant Bodes, H. J. Proveneher and J. A. Paucher. They had offices together, Paucher testifying that although he was an “independent broker” he was working out of the office of Bodes on a commission basis. To the question, “What was your arrangement with Mr. Bodes,” Paucher replied, “I was working on 60-A0 per cent”. It is claimed by plaintiff that Bodes and Proveneher were partners but the court erroneously prevented plaintiff from proving the relationship between them.

Plaintiff’s business affairs with Bodes began in September, 1927. A transaction contemplated at that time was not completed. Plaintiff told Bodes of her Inglewood property, which, after Bodes inspected it, was listed with him for sale or exchange.