Grubb v. House

Citations

• 93 Wash. 200
• 160 P. 421

Syllabus

<p>Limitation or Actions — Fraud—Time or Discovert. An action for fraudulently representing that a well on premises leased to plaintiffs contained an abundant supply of pure water, is barred by the statute of limitations if not commenced within three years after taking possession when plaintiffs must have discovered the fraud.</p> <p>Evidence — Parol—To Vary Writing — Lease — Contemporaneous Warranty. Where a written lease of hotel property is complete in itself, a prior or contemporaneous oral warranty as to the water in a well on the leased premises cannot be shown.</p> <p>Evidence — Parol—To Vary Writing — Dieeerent Consideration— Frauds, Statute op. Where a lease of a hotel building for a five-year term was unacknowledged, it is inadmissible to show by parol, as an additional consideration for the full term, that the lessees, hotelmen of reputation, agreed to build up a patronage from which no revenue was expected at first; since no consideration was paid that went to the entire term, no recognition of the lease was made within one year prior to its expiration, and no permanent improvement was made by the lessee; and in such case it is inadmissible to show by parol a different consideration that modifies the legal effect of the lease.</p> <p>Frauds, Statute op — Lease — Permanent Improvements — Good Will. The good will of a lessee’s hotel business does not operate as a permanent improvement by the lessee so as to remove the bar of the statute of frauds as to an unacknowledged lease for five years.</p>