Morey v. Bovee

PRESTON, J.

In this action to recover damages resulting from alleged fraud and misrepresentation practiced by defendants on plaintiff in connection with an exchange of real properties, judgment was rendered in,favor of plaintiff and against defendant Thaddeus E. Bovee. Said defendant appealed. The court below found the facts material to this discussion to be substantially as follows:

Plaintiff owned two apartment houses in Los Angeles, which he desired to exchange for real property in Orange County. Defendants owned an orange grove in said county. The parties were brought together through the efforts of two licensed realtors. On July 16, 1930, plaintiff, with his son and said realtors, called at the ranch residence of defendants ; the parties

met;

terms of exchange were discussed and plaintiff walked some distance over the ranch property and inspected it. The evidence which supports the find

[782]

ings of fraud and misrepresentation is found in conflicting accounts, given by witnesses upon trial of the cause, as to the conversation had at this meeting. This evidence was sufficient, however, to warrant the court in concluding that plaintiff was induced to enter into the exchange wholly by the false and fraudulent statements and representations of appellant and of his agents to the effect that there were 23 acres of Valencia orange trees standing upon the land, 3 acres of walnut trees and 4 acres of lemon trees, whereas there were in truth and fact but 17.899 acres of orange trees, 4.02 acres of lemons and 3.507 acres of walnuts, the balance of the 30.002 acres comprising said ranch consisting of road and railway rights of way, house site, vacant land, etc.

A short time after the above-mentioned meeting defendants inspected the apartment house properties of plaintiff and thereafter and on July 23, 1930, the terms of the transfers were placed in writing. Plaintiff paid off a mortgage of $5,000 on part of the property he was to receive and placed $12,500 in escrow for the benefit of appellant. Possession of the properties was exchanged on August 7, 1930'. A few days later plaintiff and appellant called at the bank to examine their respective guaranties of title. Plaintiff testified that when he saw the map attached to the title guarantee for the Orange County property he became aware for the first time that there was something amiss with his idea of the boundary lines of the orange grove. He immediately made a more minute inspection of the property and in the latter part of August had it surveyed, which survey resulted in discovery of the aforesaid shortage in the acreage planted to orange trees. The court found that the value of the property received by plaintiff was $76,000; that had said property been as represented by appellant, its value would have been $88,600; hence plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $12,600 and was entitled to judgment in that amount less certain set-offs in favor of appellant.