Cornish v. Suiter

CONRET, P. J.

From the findings of fact made in this case it appears that at various times between the first day of January, 1911, and the tenth day of July, 1911, the defendants represented to the plaintiff that they were the duly authorized agents of the owner of a certain tract of land in Modoc County, California, which land had been subdivided under the name of Willow Ranch Orchard Plomestead Tract, and that said land was owned by the Tri-State Land Company. Believing and relying upon such representations, the plaintiff paid to the defendants on June 7, 1911, the sum of $250, and on July 10, 1911, the sum of $250, for and on account of the purchase of a ten-acre parcel of land in said tract. The Tri-State Land Company was not a corporation, but said name was in fact a fictitious name under which one Bernard C. Sitz pretended to be operating and conducting a business of advertising and selling and improving said land, as the defendants at all times well knew, but the defendants failed and neglected to disclose to the plaintiff that the said name of the Tri-State Land Company was a fictitious name, or that said Sitz was the person carrying on said business under said name. Neither in his own name nor in the name of the Tri-State Land Company was the said Sitz at any time the owner of said tract of land or of any part thereof, and he was not, nor were the defendants, at any time the agent or agents of the owner of said tract of land or any part thereof. At all the times of making the representations mentioned, the information and knowledge which the defendants had did not warrant the making of said representations. The defendants well knew that one Kirkpatrick was in fact the owner of all of said land, and that Sitz, operating under said name of Tri-State Land Company, was not the owner, and that defendants did not have authority from Kirkpatrick to sell or dispose of the land or any part thereof. Prior to the making of said representations the defendants knew that Sitz would not be able to deliver deed for the land unless

[518]

Kirkpatrick was first paid therefor. Prior to the making of such assertions and representations, Kirkpatrick notified the defendants that unless Sitz first paid him for the. land and received conveyances thereof, parties purchasing from the defendants would not get deeds for their land. Prior to the time when defendants made said representations to the plaintiff, Sitz presented to them a false and forged abstract of title which showed a fictitious and forged deed purporting to convey said tract of land from Kirkpatrick to Bernard C. Sitz, and purporting to be a copy of the records of the office of the county recorder of Modoc County, and the defendants believed the same to be genuine and relied upon the same. Said forged abstract of title was presented to the defendants about the month of July, 1910, and did not purport to show any conveyance of such land to the TriState Land Company. At two different times subsequent to seeing said forged abstract, and prior to June, 1911, the defendants were at the county seat of Modoc County, but made no investigation or inquiry concerning the true state of the record title to said tract of land. “As early as January, 1911, defendants knew that said purported abstract of title was false and forged, and that said tract of land was in fact owned by the said Kirkpatrick.” Said representations were made by the defendants to the plaintiff for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to enter into a contract with them as the agents of Sitz to purchase the said parcel of land. The plaintiff was not informed at any time prior to July 11, 1911, as to the identity of the defendants’ principal in any manner, except that they were the agents of the Tri-State Land Company. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the said Sitz, but believed the TriState Land Company to be a corporation and the defendants to be agents thereof. In August, 1911, plaintiff offered to pay the defendants an installment of twenty dollars on account of the purchase of said land, being an installment mentioned in the contract delivered by the defendants to the plaintiff in the name of the Tri-State Land Company on July 11, 1911, but defendants refused to accept the payment of twenty dollars and informed the plaintiff that their principal was and would be unable to convey or perform the contract for the conveyance of said land, and that the said