Gammon v. Hubbell

THE COURT.

This action was commenced by plaintiffs to recover damages alleged to have been suffered by reason of certain false and fraudulent representations of defendants. Defendants interposed a general and special demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs thereupon filed an amended complaint, and again a general and special demurrer was sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiffs declined to amend, and a judgment was accordingly entered against them. Prom this judgment plaintiffs prosecute this appeal.

The amended complaint alleges that in September, 1926, plaintiff E. A. Gammon, as “attorney in fact” for plaintiff Mabel Alice Gammon entered into negotiations for the purchase of, real property; that during the negotiations the Pair Oaks Bank, defendant herein, was the owner of two promissory notes secured by two deeds of trust on the designated property; that defendant Hubbell, acting as the president and agent of the bank, informed E. A. Gammon that the two notes were past due, and “promised and agreed with plaintiff, E. A. Gammon, that if said Gammon would purchase said property for the said Mabel Alice Gammon, plaintiff herein, that he, the said Hubbell, would not enforce payment of said notes, but would continue same for the period immediately prior to the expiration of the time limit within which said notes and each of them would become void by reason of the statute of limitations”; that plaintiffs gave “full faith and credit” to such statements and relied thereon, as defendants well knew; that immediately thereafter plaintiff E. A. Gammon, as attorney-in-fact for said Mabel Alice Gammon, purchased the said prop

[94]

erty, “and said defendants did, then and there immediately following said purchase repudiate said promise and statements and did demand of and from plaintiffs the full amount of each of said promissory notes, and threatened to file Notice of Breach and threatened to sell said property under said Deeds of Trust”; that the above promises were made by said defendants without any intention of performing the same and with the intent to deceive and defraud plaintiffs and to acquire possession of the said premises in question; that in order to save the premises from sale and in order to diminish the loss, plaintiffs were required to obtain a new loan within a short period and were forced to expend $626 in securing the same, and were forced to pay two per cent per annum more than they would have paid on the old loan held by defendants; all to plaintiffs’ damage in the sum of $1,006.25.