Mumford v. Smith

Citations

• 89 Wash. 98
• 154 P. 153
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 664

Syllabus

<p>Exchange of Property — -Rescission—Fraud — Evidence — Sufficiency. The owner of farm lands exchanged for an apartment house in reliance upon false representations, was defrauded and is entitled to a rescission, where it appears that she gave property of the-value of $4,000 to $5,000 in return for an equity in the apartment house not exceeding in value $500, and her vendee falsely represented the income from rentals, the desirability of the location, and that a railroad company was about to build a depot in the vicinity, and that he had customers for the apartment house to whom he could sell it in a few months at a price which would net the values of the property given in exchange; the gross inadequacy of price being a badge of fraud, and some of the representations relating to matters the truth of which was not readily ascertainable, and not merely “seller’s praise” or matters of opinion.</p> <p>Same — Fraud—Rescission—Decree—Relief-—Money Judgment. Where, in a rescission of an exchange of real property for fraud, a recovery in specie is precluded by the defendant’s sale and mortgage of parts of the property to tona fide purchasers, the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery in specie of the mortgaged and unsold property, with recovery over against the defendant personally for the amount of the loss, measured by the mortgage and the value of the property sold, upon reconveying the defendant’s property.</p>