Wiester v. Wiester

SEARLS, C. This is an action to obtain a decree annulling a deed of conveyance by defendant to plaintiff of the undivided one-sixth interest in and to about four hundred and eighty acres of land situate in the county of Pacific, state of Washington; to have it determined that plaintiff has an interest in the firm of Wiester & Co., which on August 1, 1890, was of the value of $7,000; that defendant be decreed to have received said interest in said firm under a trust for the use and benefit of plaintiff; that defendant be held to account therefor, etc. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. Written findings were filed, upon which judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

[687]The findings are too lengthy to be set out in full. The following will convey an idea of their drift: On the 1st of August, 1890, and for some four years prior thereto, plaintiff and defendant were partners in business in San Francisco; the former owning one-fourth and the latter, who was his uncle, three-fourths interest in the business. Plaintiff was in bad health, and wished to retire from the business. He asked his uncle, the defendant, to buy him out. The latter wished to retain plaintiff in the business, but finally consented, and they determined that plaintiff’s interest was of the value of $7,000. Defendant had no ready money to pay, but had the note of plaintiff for $1,600, given when plaintiff bought into the business, and owned four hundred and seventy-nine and two-fifths acres of land near South Bend, county of Pacific, now in the state of Washington, which cost him $2,000 some five or six years previously. Neither party had ever seen the land, and all their information in regard to it came from telegrams and letters from other persons. A “land boom” was on at South Bend, a railroad and other improvements were in course of construction, and land values were rapidly enhancing. Defend- ' ant believed, from newspapers, letters, etc., that his land was worth from $70 to $100 per acre, and that he could in a short time sell it for the latter figure. Plaintiff, who knew as much of its value and prospects as defendant, proposed taking an interest in the land in payment for the remainder of his interest in the store after deducting the amount of the note. The parties agreed to this, and plaintiff accepted an undivided one-sixth interest in said land in full payment of the balance due him, and received a deed therefor. In this deal the land was reckoned at $70 per acre. The court finds that the land was at that time of the value of $50 per acre, and is now of the value of $10 per acre. At and prior to this transaction the parties were on very intimate terms of mutual friendship, confidence and respect, which conditions existed up to about the time of the commencement of this suit. Defendant took no advantage of plaintiff by reason of their relationship or business or terms of friendship in the said transaction, and “did not make any false or fraudulent representations whatever to the plaintiff concerning the said land, or the character, location, situation, condition or value thereof, and the said transaction was made