Bahrs v. Runkle

Citations

• 79 Wash. 45
• 139 P. 637
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1136

Syllabus

<p>Exchange of Property — Fraud—Evidence—Sufficiency. A rescission of a trade of farm property for an apartment house and furniture cannot be had for misrepresentations as to the ownership of two pianos, where the ownership was disclosed during the pendency of the negotiations, and they were not included in the papers executed, to which no serious objection was made at the time.</p> <p>Same. Fraud, warranting the rescission of a trade of farm property for an apartment house, is not established by clear and convincing evidence as to misrepresentations as to the income from the apartment house, or as to the number of rooms that were vacant, where the defendant’s testimony sustains the verity of lists furnished' showing the income, and the evidence as to whether there were five or seven vacancies was in dispute, and some confusion arose by reason of changes pending the negotiations.</p>