83 Cal. 7, 13256, Holton v. Noble
|Citation:||83 Cal. 7, 23 P. 58|
|Opinion Judge:||THORNTON, Judge|
|Party Name:||E. R. HOLTON, Respondent, v. GEORGE A. NOBLE et al., Appellants|
|Attorney:||Grady & Austin, for Appellants. Meux & Edwards, for Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||JUDGES: Thornton, J. McFarland, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.|
|Case Date:||February 01, 1890|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order allowing judgment on the pleadings.
Appeal by defendants. This action was brought to recover rent due on a written lease executed by plaintiff to defendants for one year, commencing
January 5, 1888, and ending the 5th of January, 1889. The lease was for two years, commencing on the day above mentioned, in 1888, and ending on the fifth day of January, 1890. The stipulated rent was three thousand two hundred dollars a year for the first year, payable on the twentieth day of December, 1888, and for the second year, on the same day of December, 1889. The defendants went into possession under the lease, and occupied the premises until the twentieth day of January, 1889. The defendants filed an answer, in which they set forth that, before the lease was entered into, plaintiff made certain false representations to the defendants as to the number of acres of the land on which there was a good stand of alfalfa; that he represented that there were 180 acres in good stand of alfalfa, while in truth and in fact there were not more than eighty acres. It is further averred that plaintiff represented that the land so sown in alfalfa would produce at least eight tons of hay to the acre, while in fact said eighty acres would or did produce, with the best tillage and care, less than four tons per acre, and the balance of said 180, none; that plaintiff also represented that the forty acres of grape-vines on the land would produce at least from a ton to two tons of raisins per acre, while in fact the forty acres produced only six tons of raisins; that defendants relied on the said representations of plaintiff, and for this reason, and not otherwise, leased the land; that the only reason why they did lease this land was that they believed the statements so made by plaintiff to be true.
The alleged representations of the plaintiff as to the amount that the alfalfa and grape-vines would produce were clearly matter of opinion, and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP