Harvey v. Hadley
Before: Vanclief
Synopsis
Vendor and Purchaser — Fraudulent Representations of Vendor — Prospects Affecting Value of Land Sold—Measure of Damages. — In estimating the damages to a vendee for fraudulent representations of the vendor in regard to prospects affecting the value of the land sold, where part only of the representations made are untrue, it is not proper to consider what would he the value of the land if all the representations made were untrue, nor what its value would be exclusive of an existing prospect, in respect to which the representations were partially false; but the difference should be taken between the price paid by reason of the false representations as to its value, supposing them to be true, and the actual value of the land at the time of purchase, in view of prospects actually existing.
Vanclief, C. On July 8, 1887, the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement in writing, wdiereby the plaintiff agreed to sell to defendants a certain tract of land situate in the town site, or projected town, of Whittier, in the county of Los Angeles, for the sum of eight thousand dollars, three thousand dollars of which had been paid before the commencement of this action. For the residue (five thousand dollars) the defendants made their promissory note of even date.with the con[559]tract, payable on or before June 7, 1888, with interest at ten per cent per month, to be compounded semiannually.
This action was brought to recover the amount due on the note, and to foreclose the vendor's lien upon the the land.
The defense is, that the defendants were induced to purchase the land by false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff, to the damage of the defendants. The court found that plaintiff made the representations charged, and that the greater portion of them were false and fraudulent, to the damage of defendants in the sum of $3,000, and deducted this sum from the note, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the residue and interest, amounting to $2,595.
The defendants appeal from the judgment on the judgment roll, and contend that the finding of onty three thousand dollars damages is inconsistent with the twelfth finding, by which, they say, it appears that the damages were five thousand dollars. This is the only point made, and to dispose of it in favor of the respondent, I think it is only necessary to read the twelfth finding in connection with the eighth and thirteenth findings.
The twelfth finding is as follows: “ That the value of said land, without any prospect of a college or street-car line being built as represented by the plaintiff, and without any contract being let for the same, or either of them, was, at the time of the purchase, the sum of three thousand dollars; that if the contract for the building of said street-car line along Hadley Street to the southwest corner of said land to Painter Avenue had been let as represented by plaintiff, said land would have been at the time of the purchase of the market value of six thousand dollars; that if said plaintiff had in good faith intended to build said college, and the Quakers had agreed or determined to build said college, and the contract for building said street-car line had been let at the time of male[560]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)