Faull v. Johnson

FINCH, P. J.

In the year 1919 Nancy E. Farlow entered into a contract to sell 264 acres of land in Fresno County to E. J. DeMasters. In January, 1920, Joseph E. Trembley, William R. Trembley, Claude H. Trembley, and Frank Trembley acquired all of the purchaser’s rights under the contract. January 2, 192'2, the Trembleys entered into an agreement to sell 47 acres of the land to O. E. Hillyard for $19,500, $4,700 thereof to be paid on or before December 1, 1930, and sixty per cent of the gross proceeds received from the sale of all crops grown or produced upon the premises during and after the year 1924 to be applied on the purchase price until the whole of the remainder was paid, the deferred payments to bear interest at seven per cent per annum. Thereafter the defendants acquired the rights of the Trembleys under the Hillyard contract. September 15, 1924, the defendants agreed to convey such rights to the plaintiffs in exchange for valuable real property in Long Beach. Subsequently both parties executed conveyances consummating the exchange. The Trembleys failed to make the payments due under their contract of purchase of the larger tract and by reason thereof, early in 1925, all their rights under that contract and the rights of the plaintiffs

[232]

under the Hillyard contract were canceled by decree of court. February 9, 1925, the plaintiffs gave notice of reeission and, the defendants refusing to rescind, this action was commenced on the following day. As grounds for rescission the complaint alleges a number of false representations alleged to have been made by the defendants and to have induced the plaintiffs to make the exchange, of which the following only need be considered:

1. That the property described in the Hillyard contract was of the value of $2-7,500, whereas its true value was only $7,000.

2. That Hillyard had made a payment of $2,000 on the contract price when in fact he had made no payment thereon.

3. That the “Trembleys were worth the sum of $150,000 and were able ... to keep their contract under which they were purchasing the land ... in full force and effect and not permit the same to become delinquent,” whereas they “were not worth the

sum of