Long v. Los Altos Country Club, Inc.

THE COURT.

This action is for the rescission of a certain contract of sale on the ground of fraudulent representations. Judgment went for plaintiff and against the defendant noted in the caption as appellant. The defendant Rhodimer defaulted, and nonsuit was entered as to the nonappealing defendants. By the decree of the court below the contract was rescinded and plaintiff awarded judgment for the return of the moneys paid thereunder. The appeal is based on three main grounds, viz., insufficiency of the evidence, errors in the admission of testimony and laches of plaintiff.

The attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence necessitates a brief summary of the facts. Disregarding conflicts, there was sufficient before the court to support the ensuing narration of the transaction. Plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, had for some period of time known defendant Rhodimer, a real estate salesman in the employ of defendant Monroe, Lyon & Miller, Inc., the latter being selling

[118]

agents as well as officers and directors of appellant. The relations of plaintiff and Bho dimer were those of close friends and neighbors, and Bhodimer was always endeavoring to interest plaintiff in the property of appellant, which was conducting a large real estate selling campaign. After some persuasion, plaintiff did become interested and visited the properties offered for sale. Eventually a contract of sale was entered into, induced solely by the representations made by the agent. It was represented that another well-known man had but recently purchased a lot adjacent to that offered to plaintiff and had almost immediately resold at a great profit. It was represented that a prominent banker had purchased twenty lots right opposite the same property and was ready to begin the construction of a twenty thousand dollar home. Further, it was represented to plaintiff that if he entered into the contract of purchase which called for a total payment of $5,000, payable !$1,000 down and $100 per month, he would not be required to make more than one or two monthly payments for the reason that defendant could and would, within sixty days, resell the property at an advance of $10,000, thus securing for the purchaser a profit of some magnitude. These representations and each of them were false and fraudulent, made for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to enter into the contract. The falsity and fraud of these representations were known to defendant and not known to plaintiff and were the inducing means without which plaintiff would not have made the contract. Appellant argues that the promise to resell was something of an estimate of value and also a promise to do something in the future, and therefore could not be the basis of an action for' rescission, inasmuch as no present fraud had been perpetrated. We need not analyze these contentions for the reason that the other representations found to be fraudulent will suffice to support the judgment. It is well settled that the misrepresentations of even a single material fact upon which plaintiff had a right to and did rely will suffice to support plaintiff’s cause of action.