Scovill v. Guy

RICHARDS, J.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff for the rescission of a certain agreement between the

[388]

plaintiff and the defendant upon the ground of fraud and deceit on the part of the latter in procuring such agreement and the payment of certain moneys thereunder, which the plaintiff seeks also to recover in the form of damages for such fraud and deceit. The cause proceeded to trial upon the amended complaint of the plaintiff and the defendant’s answer thereto, putting in issue the averments of said amended complaint as to any acts of wrongdoing on the part of the defendant. Upon the trial and submission of the cause the trial court made its findings of fact wherein it set forth in full the correspondence between the parties, which not only embodied their agreement but also contained the statements and representations which the plaintiff asserted were, and which the trial court found to have been, falsely and fraudulently made, and to have been acted upon by the plaintiff in the belief that they were true to the extent of paying to the defendant the sum of money which he now seeks to recover. Upon such findings of fact and the conclusions of law drawn therefrom judgment was entered in the plaintiff’s favor for the relief sought in his amended complaint. It is from such judgment that the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

The first contention of the appellant is that there was no evidence presented at the trial sufficient to show that any confidential relation existed between the parties prior to and at the time the representations of the defendant, which resulted in said agreement, were made. It may be conceded that the evidence in the ease did not disclose the existence of such a confidential relation between the parties as would bring the case within the provisions of section 2219 of the Civil Code; but it was not essential to a recovery by the plaintiff in this case that such a degree of confidential relation between the parties as would create a trusteeship within the provisions of said section of the code should exist. It was sufficient for the plaintiff to show the existence of such • friendly relations during a period of several years between himself and the defendant as would entitle the plaintiff to place confidence in the integrity and honesty of the defendant and in the truth of whatever representations the latter was making to him with regard to the transaction and to the particular business wherein the defendant ^by his correspondence was proposing that the plaintiff and