Rendell v. Scott

California Supreme Court

Rendell v. Scott

11 P. 779, 70 Cal. 514, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 833

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 28, 1886

DocketNo. 11095

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 11 P. 779 (Rendell v. Scott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rendell v. Scott, 11 P. 779, 70 Cal. 514, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 833 (Cal. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

The defendants by their cross-complaint sought to have set aside as obtained by fraud a contract by which the defendants had agreed to purchase a tract of land from plaintiff. The alleged fraud consisted of certain representations by which the defendants were induced to • enter into the contract for the purchase of the land. The cross-complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained.

It is apparent to us that the matters alleged as constituting the fraud were matters of opinion rather than of facts. It was certainly matter of opinion when the plaintiff stated that the land was the best ranch in lone Valley, and was very rich and productive, and would produce fifty bushels of wheat to the acre; that a portion was good alfalfa land, and that another portion was rich in mineral deposits; and the other matters alleged may well be, classed under the head of matters of opinion [515]*515rather than a false representation of facts. There is no averment which excludes the idea of personal inspection by the purchaser.

In such a case, the purchaser should exercise his own judgment, and is not entitled to relief in equity.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Court.

The defendants by their cross-complaint sought to have set aside as obtained by fraud a contract by which the defendants had agreed to purchase a tract of land from plaintiff. The alleged fraud consisted of certain representations by which the defendants were induced to • enter into the contract for the purchase of the land. The cross-complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained.

It is apparent to us that the matters alleged as constituting the fraud were matters of opinion rather than of facts. It was certainly matter of opinion when the plaintiff stated that the land was the best ranch in lone Valley, and was very rich and productive, and would produce fifty bushels of wheat to the acre; that a portion was good alfalfa land, and that another portion was rich in mineral deposits; and the other matters alleged may well be, classed under the head of matters of opinion [515]*515rather than a false representation of facts. There is no averment which excludes the idea of personal inspection by the purchaser.

In such a case, the purchaser should exercise his own judgment, and is not entitled to relief in equity.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 P. 779, 70 Cal. 514, 1886 Cal. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rendell-v-scott-cal-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack