Croft v. Ingle

BARNARD, P. J. This is an action to recover the payments made under a rescinded contract.

The defendants, with one Frymeir and one Castillo had previously purchased certain land in Mexico. Title was taken in the name of Castillo, in order to comply with Mexican law, with an oral agreement that he would hold such title in trust, one third for himself, one third for Frymeir, and one third for Ingle and Tadloek, and that a better method would be adopted when one could be found. They then [192]started to form a trust with a Mexican bank as trustee, and the members of the group as beneficiaries.

On July 19, 1949, the defendants and the plaintiff signed two contracts, which in effect constitute one agreement, by the terms of which the defendants agreed “to sell their y3 interest” in this land to the plaintiff for $7,000; the plaintiff agreed to assume one third of certain debts; 'and the defendants agreed “to draw up the necessary papers to be filed with the proper authorities, in Mexico City, Mex., showing” that the plaintiff “has bought the % interest” in this land, and “to follow through and complete the transfer of title of land” from the names of the defendants to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid $7,000 and signed the notes representing the indebtedness he agreed to assume.

The plaintiff and his family moved on the land but Ingle and Frymeir continued to manage the farming operations, keeping the books and handling the proceeds of the crops. They took in $27,000 from a crop of tomatoes, claiming that their expenses were much greater, but the plaintiff never knew what the costs actually were. The plaintiff kept asking for some evidence of title showing that he had an interest in the land, but nothing was furnished. On March 27, 1950, the plaintiff served on the defendants written notice that he had rescinded the contracts of July 19, 1949, demanding a return of the $7,000, and offering to restore everything he had received.' The defendants having refused to return the money or cancel the indebtedness assumed, this action was brought on April 13, 1950.

The complaint alleged, among other things, the making of the agreements on July 19, 1949; that title to the land then stood in the name of Castillo; that the defendants then had no title whatsoever to the land and have not since acquired any title; that while the plaintiff knew that he could not hold title to the land, not being a Mexican citizen, the defendants informed him that the title could be put in his name “on the deed, but that the deed would have to be held for him” by the bank of Mexico; and that when the agreement was executed the defendants told him that title could be thus placed in his name within a week. The prayer was for a return of the $7,000 with interest, for a cancellation of one of the notes which the defendants held, and that the defendants be required to assume the other obligations for which the plaintiff had signed notes. The answer admitted that the defendants had entered into an agreement