Crockett v. Neely & Young, Inc.

Citations

• 80 Wash. 657
• 141 P. 1143

Syllabus

<p>Vendor and Purchaser—Rescission by Vendee—Recovery of Price—Fraud—Evidence—Sufficiency. Findings that a purchase of land was not induced by the fraudulent representations of the vendor as to its situation as sheltered from winds, its fertility and its suitability for growing vegetables and fruit by means of irrigation, and the character of a spring, etc., including the false use of a photograph of a man on his knees purporting to be standing in a field of alfalfa, are supported, where the testimony, although conflicting, fully sustained the truth of all the representations, the vendee had visited and personally inspected the land, which had been since resold at a large advance to a second purchaser, who was satisfied and successfully applying the land to the purposes for which it was originally sold, and the vendor was not aware of the deceptive use of the photograph of the alfalfa field, the raising of alfalfa being, in any event, outside the purpose of the vendee, and an immaterial matter.</p> <p>Same — Misrepresentations — Materiality. Misrepresentations by the vendor of land do not warrant a rescission by the purchaser, where, if intended as such, they were concerning an immaterial matter and without prejudice to the purchaser.</p>