Curby v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem. In 1927 defendant Hudson was the sales agent for tract 9597 in the city of Burbank, California. The legal title to said tract was vested in defendant Title Insurance & Trust Company, to which it had been conveyed in trust by the owners, defendants W. F. Bonner, Frank Belcher, C. A. Anderson, Orville Meyers and Dave Hepburn. Defendant Largay was division manager of defendant Hudson’s large sales force and acted as “closer” in the deals in which plaintiff was involved. Defendant DeShields was one of the salesmen, and defendant Hudson and he took plaintiff to the tract where they met Largay. As the result of their efforts plaintiff entered into three contracts with defendant Title Guarantee & Trust Company for the purchase of three separate lots. The first was dated February 23, 1927, involving the sale oí lot 364 of said tract for $1550, the sum of $387.50 being paid down. This contract was canceled by agreement when plaintiff was induced to purchase lot 6 of said tract on March 10, 1927, and the money paid on lot 364, together with a profit of $100 allowed plaintiff, as well as an additional amount paid by her, made a credit of $750 to her on the purchase price of $3,000. On May 1, 1927, she bought lot 360 for the sum of $1600, the sum of $400 being paid down. All down payments were made to defendant DeShields. Plaintiff made the monthly payments on lots 6 and 360, more or less in accordance with the terms of the contract, until July 8, 1929, when she stopped. On November 3, 1929, she served on defendants notice of rescission of such contracts on the ground of fraudulent inducement and demanded repayment of the amounts paid by her on the [243]purchase price. On November 14, 1929, she filed her complaint against the Title Guarantee & Trust Company, the former owners, and defendant Hudson and her agents Largay and DeShields, praying for the return of +he money so paid. Prior to the trial of the action plaintiff filed a dismissal with prejudice as to all defendants except Hudson, Largay and DeShields. The case was tried on the issues made by the complaint and defendant Hudson’s answer thereto. So far as the record shows, Largay and DeShields were not represented at the trial nor interested in it, except that Largay was a witness for defendant Hudson. From the judgment in favor of nlaintiff. defendant Hudson has appealed.

The false and fraudulent statements alleged to have induced the various contracts are as follows: (a) That defendants would resell said lots in a short time for plaintiff at a profit; (b) that a beautiful college, known as the College of International Relations was to be built near the tract, immediately, and that on or before the first of the year 1928 a large “movie” studio would be constructed near plaintiff’s lots; (c) that Victory Boulevard would be fully completed within a short time; (d) that a rapid transit tunnel from Los Angeles would be immediately constructed; and (e) that Whitnall Boulevard, intersecting or adjacent to said tract, would be shortly completed.