Glasgow v. Brecht

• Decision Date: 30 September 1921
• Docket Number: 16280.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GLASGOW et ux. v. BRECHT et al.

200 P. 1089

117 Wash. 245

GLASGOW et ux. v. BRECHT et al.

No. 16280.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 30, 1921

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Edward C. Mills Judge.

Action by Frank N. Glasgow and wife against Laurence Brecht and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Cary M Rader and John C. Hurspool, both of Walla Walla, for appellants.

Sharpstein Smith & Sharpstein, of Walla Walla, for respondents.

MAIN J.

The plaintiffs purchased from the defendants a farm, and, having concluded that they were defrauded, brought this action for damages. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $2,500. A motion for new trial being made and overruled judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendants appeal.

The appellants were the owners of a farm in Walla Walla county consisting of 260 acres. In May, 1919, this was purchased by the respondents for the sum of $30,000. Before making the purchase they visited the farm on two occasions, the first time only making a casual examination thereof. Upon the second visit they were accompanied by the representative of the appellants, and they looked over the place somewhat carefully. The action grew out of a representation which the respondents claimed was made to them, to the effect that there were 200 acres of land under cultivation. After possession of the farm had been taken the respondents caused it to be surveyed, with the result that they were apprised that but approximately 140 acres of the land was in cultivation. The appellants in their answer denied that any representation was made as to the number of acres in cultivation or in the pasture. The farm was situated in what is called the foothills, and the land in cultivation was irregular in shape and of such topography that it could not all be seen at one time from any elevated point. It was also divided by a road. The principal contention of the appellants appears to be that the evidence was not sufficient to carry the question of false representation to the jury, and that therefore the court erred in failing to grant their motion for a new trial. In support of this position two facts are largely relied upon: First, that the respondents visited and looked over the farm before its purchase; and, second, that no representations were made. Upon the second question the evidence was conflicting, and the jury had the right to believe that offered by the respondents, which was that there was a positive representation made to them that 200 acres of the land was in cultivation. Upon the question as to whether the respondents should be denied a recovery because they visited and looked over the farm before its purchase the case is strikingly similar to that of George v. Kurdy, 92 Wash. 277, 158 P. 965. There the plaintiff claiming to have been...