Withroder v. Elmore

Citations

• 106 Kan. 300
• 187 P. 863
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 507

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>Contract — Purchase of Interest in Oil and Gas Lease. In an action by the purchaser of an interest in an oil and gas lease against his vendors, asking a rescission of the bargain, and judgment for the amount he had paid, on the ground that he had been defrauded by representations that the lease had cost them more than was the fact, it is held:</p> <p>1. Same — Rescission of Contract — Da/mages. The action was one for rescission,.not involving an affirmance of the contract, and the recovery was not limited to an abatement of the purchase price in proportion to the difference between what the lease had cost the original owners and what they represented they had paid for it.</p> <p>2. Same — Fraudulent Representations — Election of Remedies The plaintiff had a right to proceed 'either in that manner or by an action for damages on the theory of an affirmance of the contract.</p> <p>3. Same — Rescission—No Written Release Required No writing having been given the plaintiff in evidence of his purchase, it was not necessary for him to sign any release in order to restore to the defendants what he had obtained from them.</p> <p>4 Same — Effect of Fraudulent Representations. The effect of such deception was not necessarily limited to causing the plaintiff to pay more for his interest in the lease than he would otherwise have done. It may have been the inducement to his making the purchase on any terms.</p> <p>5. Same — Verdict and Findings. The fact that the verdict was for a less amount than the full purchase price may be accounted for by assuming that one of the three subscriptions made by the plaintiff was found not to have been brought about by the misrepresentation.</p> <p>■6. Same — Appeal—Matter Reviewable. Inasmuch as the plaintiff recovered a judgment, from which the appeal is taken, and filed no motion for a new trial, no review can be had herein of any trial ruling made against him.</p>