Roslund v. Brownlow

Citations

• 115 Wash. 301
• 197 P. 16
• 1921 Wash. LEXIS 726

Syllabus

<p>Sales (13, 22)—Fraud by Seller—Evidence—Sufficiency. A finding that no false representations were made by defendant as to the gross income of a hotel sold to plaintiff is supported by evidence that, during the month preceding the sale, the hotel earned such sum and for some months prior thereto earned approximately the sum represented.</p> <p>Same (21)—Fraud by Seller — Evidence — Admissibility. In an action for false representations as to the income of hotel property, it was not error to exclude evidence as to sales of intoxicating liquor by the housekeeper who had control of the property for defendant, which sales it was claimed by plaintiff entered into the computation of the gross income, where it appeared from the evidence that the monthly reports made by the housekeeper were based alone upon the rents received.</p> <p>Appeal (452)—Review—Error Not Affecting Trial De Novo. The admission of evidence of the amount paid by defendant for a hotel business was immaterial in an action against defendant for damages for falsely representing the gross income of the hotel sold by defendant to plaintiff.</p> <p>Payment (32)—Recovery of Voluntary Payments. Where' an action was brought for rescission of the sale of a hotel, or, in the alternative for damages for fraud in making the sale, but rescission was waived and the suit tried as one for damages, it was not necessary for the court, in its findings of fact or judgment in the action for damages, to notice the payment of monthly instalments made on the contract price on the theory of an action for rescission.</p>