Hamilton v. French

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment against them in an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the fraud and misrepresentations of the defendants.

The defendant J. M. French is engaged in the real estate business in Los Angeles, as a .duly licensed real estate broker, doing business under the fictitious name of J. M. French Company. The defendant F. H. Russell is a real estate salesman, working in the office of J. M. French •Company, and the defendant Wet a G. Glassell was one of the clients of this office and formerly owned certain land in San Diego County about which the misrepresentations are alleged to have been made.

At the time the misrepresentations are alleged to have been made plaintiff was the owner of a certain house and lot in the city of Los Angeles, which she had listed with the J. M. French Company for sale or exchange at a valuation of $7,500, with the understanding, however, that she would be interested in any offers for the property which would secure her $6,100, the amount it had cost her.

Plaintiff alleged that on or about May 1, 1922, the defendants represented to her that a certain described forty acres of land in San Diego County owned by defendant Glassell was of the market value of $2,500; that it was composed of black, silt loam, was accessible for farming purposes, and could be readily irrigated from a near-by stream. It is alleged that these representations were made to plaintiff for the purpose of persuading her to exchange her Los Angeles property for the forty acres in San Diego County at a valuation of $2,500; that she was inexperienced in the value of real estate and had no knowledge or information concerning the San Diego land or the market value thereof; that she relied upon said representations of defendants, believing them to be true, and relying wholly thereon, was induced to exchange her Los Angeles property for the San Diego property and a $4,000 note, the purchaser of the JDos Angeles property to assume a $1,000 mortgage thereon. Plaintiff further alleges that said representations of the defendants were false and fraudulent; that defend

[291]

ants did not believe them to be true and made them to plaintiff with the intention of deceiving her and inducing her to exchange the Los Angeles property as aforesaid, and but for said representations plaintiff would not have made the exchange.