Arrowsmith v. Nelson

Citations

• 73 Wash. 658
• 132 P. 743
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1656

Syllabus

<p>Fraud — Pleading—Complaint—Suebtciency. An allegation that defendants knew or ought to have known that representations inducing a sale of land were false, is sufficient to raise an issue of fraud, especially where the complaint was so treated below at the trial, and must be liberally construed.</p> <p>Pleading — Complaint — Inconsistent Causes — Objections — Waiver. In the absence of a motion to strike, a complaint alleging, as a first cause of action, a mutual mistake in a deed, and as a second cause of action, fraud by false representations in pointing out the boundaries, thereby inducing the sale, is not inconsistent and is sufficient to raise the issue of fraud.</p> <p>Fraud — Sale oe Land — False Representations — Evidence—Suejtciency. An owner of land participates in fraudulent representations by the agents as to the area, inducing a sale, where he was present when the representations were made, and knew the number of acres expected by the purchasers, and that the tract did not eontain the area represented, and did not advise the purchasers of the fact.</p> <p>Same — Defenses—Mutual Mistake. Liability for fraudulent representations inducing a sale of land cannot be escaped on the ground of mutual mistake by the one who had the better means of knowing and assumed to know the material fact, and misrepresented it.</p> <p>Vendor and Purchaser — Remedies of. Purchaser — Deficiency— Sales in Gross — Fraud. A sale by “metes and bounds” of “forty acres more or less,” is not a sale in gross precluding damages for a deficiency, where the purchaser was induced to take the land by false representations that the tract contained forty acres, while it in fact contained only about thirty-one acres, and was irregular in shape, requiring a survey to determine the area.</p>