Crawford v. Armacost

• Decision Date: 29 May 1915
• Docket Number: 12237.
• Citation: 149 P. 31,85 Wash. 622
• Parties: CRAWFORD et ux. v. ARMACOST et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

149 P. 31

85 Wash. 622

CRAWFORD et ux. v. ARMACOST et ux.

No. 12237.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 29, 1915

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Kittitas County; Ralph Kauffman, Judge.

Action by M. D. Crawford and another against Lou Armacost and another. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Hovey &amp Hale, of Ellensburg, for appellants.

Pruyn &amp Hoeffler and E. K. Brown, all of Ellensburg, for respondents.

FULLERTON, J.

In the latter part of the year 1912, the respondents Crawford and wife were the owners of certain farm lands situated in Benton county. At the same time the appellants, Armacost and wife owned a half block of land in the city of Ellensburg, which contained five lots and on which there were several dwelling houses. At the time named a proposition was made that the parties exchange properties and after some negotiations an exchange was made in January, 1913. During the pendency of the negotiations leading up to the exchange, the city of Ellensburg was improving the streets in front of the lots, and it was known that the city would levy an assessment on the lots to pay the cost of the improvement. The probable amount of this assessment became a subject of inquiry on the part of the respondents when considering the terms of the exchange, and they were told by the appellants that the estimated amount of the assessment made by the city officers was $319 a lot, or a total of $1,595. The respondents accepted the statement as true and made the exchange on that basis without further inquiry. Subsequently the city levied an assessment on the property of $3,997.95, and on inquiry the respondents learned that the city's estimate of the cost of the improvement, instead of being $319 per lot or $1,595 for the whole, was $800 per lot or $4,000 for the whole. The present action was instituted by the respondents against the appellants to recover the difference between the estimated cost of the improvement as stated by the appellants and the actual cost of the same. In their complaint the respondents alleged that the appellants well knew, at the time they made the representations as to the estimated amount of the cost of the street improvement, that such estimated cost was $4,000 instead of $1,595, and that they made such representation with the intent and purpose of defrauding the respondents. Issue was taken on the complaint, and a trial had before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the respondents for the amount claimed. This appeal is from the judgment entered on the verdict.

In this court the appellant makes but one contention, namely, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. He contends that a misrepresentation as to the estimated cost of a public improvement, although made for the purpose of cheating and defrauding another, and that other is thereby cheated and defrauded, does not furnish a basis for a cause of action; this because, first, the estimate was a matter of record, as much within the opportunity of the one party to know as it is the other; second, because estimates are mere expressions of opinion, always held to be nonactionable; and third, because there was no injury, since the improvement enhanced the value of the property to the full amount of the assessment levied thereon. But we cannot agree with...