Strait v. Wilkins
Before: Allen
Synopsis
Action for Breach of Contract to Exchange Lands—Defense of False Representations—Findings—Support of Judgment—General Rule.—In an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to exchange lands, it is held that the findings of the court as to false representations made by the plaintiff as to the value of his lands to induce the exchange are sufficient to sustain a judgment for defendant, under the general rule that “whenever a party states a matter which might be otherwise only an opinion, and does not state it as the mere expression of his own opinion, but affirms it as an existing fact material to the transaction, so that the other party may reasonably treat it as a fact, and rely upon it as such, then the statement clearly becomes an affirmation of a fact, within the meaning of the general rule, and may be a fraudulent representation.”
Id.—General Bulb Inapplicable to Evidence—Excessive Values Fixed upon Property of Each Party—Nonreliance upon Bepresentations.—Such general rule is inapplicable to the evidence when the case is presented thereby where each party fixed excessive values upon the property sought to be included in the trade, which was a fact understood by all, and it is evident that the defendant did not rely upon plaintiff’s representations in the sense required to render a statement of value one of fact. The wholesome general rule above stated was never intended to establish that where parties agree upon inflated values, and each has an opportunity to determine the true value, one might neglect the opportunity, and, if subsequently to his interest, avoid the contract merely because an inflated value was fixed by the other party to the exchange.
Id.—Statement That Mortgage not Due can Stand—Opinion.—The statement that a mortgage not due for six months can stand is not a false statement, and the statement that it might be renewed indefinitely is but a mere expression of opinion.
Id.—Contract not Made in Beliance upon Any False Statement of Fact.—It is held that there is no evidence in the record tending to show that the contract was made by defendant in reliance upon any false statement of fact.
Id.—Absence of Defense to Damages—Contract by Married Woman. This case being one of damages for breach of a contract to exchange property agreed to be conveyed by the defendant, though she is a married woman, it is immaterial whether the property is her own or her husband’s; if she is unable to comply, and neglects and refuses to comply, with her contract, she is liable in damages for its breach, and has no defense thereto.
ALLEN, P. J.
Action to recover damages for breach of contract to convey real property. The case presented by the record is somewhat unique. Plaintiff, the owner of certain premises at Redlands, entered into an agreement in writing on June 19, 1907, with defendant Mary Wilkins, to exchange the same at an agreed value of $6,500 for other property at
[190]
Covina, the agreed value of which was fixed at $10,500. In such agreement defendant agreed to assume a mortgage of $3,000 on the Redlands property, and plaintiff agreed to pay defendant $500 in cash and execute a mortgage to defendant for $6,500 on the Covina property. Defendant, on June 28th gave notice of the repudiation of the contract, on the ground that the Covina property was community property over which she had no control, and further, that the written instrument was insufficient in form to constitute a valid agreement of sale and transfer. Thereupon, this action for damages, on account of defendant’s failure and refusal to carry out the contract, was commenced. Plaintiff, with the evident purpose of enhancing damages, alleged that his property at Red-lands was of the market value of $5,000 only at the time of making the contract, while the property of defendant so agreed to be exchanged was of the value of $12,000. Defendant, having the matter of damages in view, alleged that plaintiff’s property at the time of the transfer was of the value of $6,500, while her property at Covina was worth only $9,500. By a separate defense, defendant alleges that the property of plaintiff was only worth $6,000; that plaintiff represented to her that the mortgage of $3,000 had a considerable time to run before maturity, and that the holder would extend the time of payment as long as defendant might de.sire. She alleges .that plaintiff’s representations as to the value of $6,500, the fact that the mortgage did not have a considerable time to run, and that the mortgagee would renew, were statements false and by plaintiff known to be false when made. The trial court found the value of plaintiff’s property to be $5,000, in contradiction of defendant’s admission, and that the representations as to the value and statements as to the mortgage were untrue, and known by plaintiff to be untrue when made, and that defendant relied upon such representations in making the exchange. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant; from which judgment, and an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)