Hill v. Associated Almond Growers of Paso Robles

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 1928 No. Docket No. 6148.Published

Before: Koford

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's failure to disclose that substituted land was inferior and planted with prunes rather than almonds constituted fraudulent concealment, justifying the plaintiff's rescission of the contract. The court further held that the plaintiff was not barred by laches, as the delay in discovery was reasonable under the circumstances and caused no prejudice to the defendant.

Issues

Whether the defendant's failure to disclose the nature of the substituted land constituted actionable fraudulent concealment.
Whether the plaintiff's delay in discovering the fraud constituted laches barring the action for rescission.
Whether the plaintiff's tender of reconveyance was sufficient under the circumstances.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The letter of January 15, 1921, in connection with the circumstances attending it was a suppression or concealment of facts in the knowledge of the defendant which amounted to actual fraud.”

“Defendant’s letter undertook to make statements of fact and opinion about the land and was not entitled to state half truths.”

“No facts are brought home to plaintiff from which the law would infer that he had knowledge putting him upon inquiry and no prejudice to defendant is shown by the delay.”

KOFORD, P. J.

Plaintiff recovered a judgment for the purchase money which he had paid upon a contract for the purchase of a ten-acre almond orchard. The contract was rescinded for fraudulent concealment inducing plaintiff to consent to a substitution in his contract of a prune orchard for the almond orchard. Defendant appeals, claiming chiefly that the evidence is insufficient to prove fraud and that it shows such laches upon the part of plaintiff in discovering the fraud as to bar his action.

The facts disclosed by the evidence and findings are as follows: In September, 1919, plaintiff, who then resided in Chicago, entered into a written contract with defendant to purchase the north ten acres of lot 38, Associated Almond Orchards, Independence No. 1, near Paso Robles, California. The contract called for monthly installments of purchase price which were paid as they fell due. It required the corporation to plant the land to almond trees, to cultivate and care for the same and pay all taxes for four years. It contained covenants for the protection of the buyer in case of illness or death. It provided also for a development fund to be held by a trustee who would also hold the title to the land. At the time this contract was executed plaintiff had never seen the property, but in December, 1920, he visited California and inspected the property. He found it satisfactory. It was planted to almond trees about one year old. He returned to his residence in Chicago and continued in his occupation in Detroit, Michigan. He there received a letter January 15, 1921, from the defendant corporation written from Chicago by its assistant vice-president who resided there. This letter alone induced the plaintiff to consent to a substitution of a different ten-acre orchard than that which he had first purchased. The ten-acre orchard, thus substituted, plaintiff subsequently discovered was inferior in quality and was planted to prunes and not almonds. The failure to disclose these facts to plaintiff constitute the fraudulent concealment. This letter to plaintiff read as follows:

“In making a switch of lots for a Mr. Clark who wanted to get two lots adjoining (one planted last year and one to be planted this year), we have released lot 82 of Indepen

[294]

denee Tract No. 6, which, as you know, is our only tract that is near the main east and west state highway, which is now being constructed. This lot which is No. 82 of Independence Tract No. 6 is located on the main county road, is a well shaped lot and we feel sure that you will like it better than the north 10' acres of Lot 38, Independence Tract No. 1, which you now have. Would like to have you take advantage of this opportunity and feeling sure that you will want to do so, we are enclosing herewith, letter in duplicate, changing the assignment and if you are agreeable, will you place one copy of the enclosed letter with your contract and sign and return the other copy for our files. *«$#***

Hill v. Associated Almond Growers of Paso Robles

AI Brief

KOFORD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief