Fowler v. Carne
Before: Gray
Synopsis
Vendor and Vendee.—Where Plaintiff in an Action to Rescind a contract for the purchase of land alleged that it was not worth more than $6,000, but introduced no evidence of its value, and defendant and several witnesses testified it was worth from $14,000 to $16,000, and that the shares of stock in a water company sold plaintiff was sufficient to water twenty acres in a year of ordinary rainfall, it cannot be contended that findings that it was worth $15,000, and that the shares of water stock were sufficient to irrigate twenty acres, were not supported by the evidence.
Vendor and Vendee—Representations by Vendor.—Where Defendant Testified that he did not represent that all of the land purchased by plaintiff was suitable for fruit-raising, except that part already planted to fruit trees, and that ten acres in addition to that under cultivation might be rendered suitable for cultivation by a small expenditure, a finding that defendant did not make such representation was supported by the evidence.
Vendor and Vendee—Representations by Vendor.—Where Defendant Testified that there were fourteen hundred and seventy-six trees on the land purchased by plaintiff, and the written contract specified that there were from fourteen hundred to fifteen hundred, a finding that defendant did not represent that there were sixteen hundred was supported by the evidence.
Vendor and Vendee—Representations by Vendor.—Plaintiff Alleged that defendant fraudulently represented that the shares of water stock sold plaintiff were sufficient to irrigate the entire tract purchased by plaintiff, and defendant denied that he represented that plaintiff’s shares of water stock would entitle her to a sufficient amount of water to irrigate said lands, or any portion thereof except that part planted to fiuit trees. Held, that allowing defendant to amend his answer after the trial by striking out the words, “or any portion thereof except that part planted to fruit trees,” was not prejudicial to plaintiff, where the findings of the court supported the answer as it stood prior to the amendment.
Vendor and Vendee,—Where Plaintiff in an Action to Rescind a contract for the purchase of land alleged that it was worth only $6,000, but introduced no evidence of its value, error in the admission of evidence of value on the part of defendant was harmless, since the burden to show value was on plaintiff.
Witness.—Where Witnesses as to the Value of Land were qualified to give an opinion, the question what was the value of the land as “between a party who wished to buy and one who wished to sell” was not objectionable as to form.
GRAY, C. This action was brought to rescind a contract of purchase and sale of a certain fruit ranch of about fifty-three acres, situated in Ventura county, together with fifty-five shares of water stock, and to compel defendant to give up for cancellation a note and mortgage for $12,000, given to secure the balance due under said contract, and to recover $3,000 and interest paid on said contract, and also the further sum of $3,000 and interest for the value of a dwelling built on said ranch by plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was induced to enter into the contract by the fraudulent representations of defendant. The defendant denied the fraud, set up the mortgage and note in a cross-complaint, and on a trial before the court without a jury had judgment in his favor on the issue of fraud, and also foreclosing the mortgage. From this judgment and from an order denying a new trial the plaintiffs appeal.
Laura Fowler and her husband and coplaintiff resided in Chicago, Illinois, and in July, 1898, they met the defendant Came, who resided in Ojai Valley, Ventura county, California. Neither of plaintiffs knew anything about fruit farms or fruit farming in Ventura county, but they desired to purchase a fruit farm and live in California principally for the health of themselves and their two boys, and incidentally to profit by fruit farming. Accordingly, on making the acquaintance of defendant, they opened negotiations with him for the fruit ranch in controversy, which resulted in the contract now sought to be rescinded. Plaintiffs did not see the ranch, but took the defendant’s word for everything. The representations of defendant claimed in the complaint to have been false, and on which plaintiff was induced to make the purchase, are as follows: (1) He represented that said lands and fifty-five shares of water stock were of the value of $15,000; (2) that said lands were in every way adapted, suited and capable of and for profitable growing of citrus fruits, especially lemons and oranges; (3) that twenty acres of the tract contained sixteen hundred trees, that would yield a crop worth net profit of $3,200 for the year 1899; (4) that the remainder of the tract, thirty-three acres, was in proper condition to put into orange and lemon culture, and just as good as the twenty acres already in trees and [671]bearing; (5) that the fifty-five shares of stock of the San Antonio Water Company, sold with the land, carried with it water ample and sufficient to irrigate the entire tract planted to fruit trees or any and all crops that would grow upon said lands; (6) that the lands were entirely free from freezing temperature in winter-time each year. As to all these alleged false and fraudulent representations the findings are adverse to plaintiff. Appellant’s principal attack is directed against these findings. She contends that they are not supported by the evidence.
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)