Hood v. Seachrest

• Decision Date: 10 September 1918
• Citation: 89 Or. 457,174 P. 734
• Parties: HOOD v. SEACHREST.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

174 P. 734

89 Or. 457

HOOD v. SEACHREST.

Supreme Court of Oregon

September 10, 1918

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; C. U. Gantenbein Judge.

Action by Virginia V. Hood against W. C. Seachrest. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action for damages for fraudulent misrepresentations. The complaint, which was filed on February 24, 1917, alleges in substance, that on March 1, 1910, the defendant and three others were the joint owners of certain lands, the record title to which was in Nelson Fleming; that on that day influenced thereto by the solicitations and representations of the defendant, plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of a portion of such land known as tract 71 containing 13.31 acres, upon which she made an initial payment of $500, and thereafter made the deferred payments as they matured, aggregating $1,667.75, and on March 19, 1913 received a deed therefor. It is then stated:

"That the plaintiff entered into said contract and purchased said tract of land because of and by reason of the statements and representations made by the defendant to the plaintiff with reference to and concerning the character, quality, location and nature of said land, and the nature and adaptability of the soil thereof for the growing of apples, and the maintenance of a commercial apple orchard thereon, and because of the representations of said defendant with reference to and concerning the number of acres in said tract planted to apple trees, and the quality of said apple trees, and other statements and representations of material facts hereinafter set out."

Then follow detailed averments of false statements, among which are: That 9 1/2 acres of the tract were planted in apple trees of the choicest varieties for commercial purposes, when in fact there were not more than 7 acres of apples, of inferior varieties wholly unsuitable for a commercial orchard; that defendant was experienced in and thoroughly familiar with the business of growing and marketing apples that he knew the quality, character, and nature of soil requisite for the successful growing of apples for the market; that he was familiar with the soil of the Hood River district, and that tract 71 was superior thereto in every particular; that said tract of land was a first-class apple orchard, and ideal for the maintenance of a commercial orchard, when, in fact, it is located on the south slope of a steep hill, exposed to an ocean breeze, and is wholly worthless for the purpose of growing apples; that by the time the trees were 5 years old they would produce a full crop of apples, which, at normal prices, would be worth from $3,000 to $5,000, if plaintiff would follow the advice and directions of defendant in the care and cultivation of the orchard; that plaintiff did follow the advice and directions of defendant, but that the orchard has never produced any fruit, although now more than seven years old. There are several other allegations of false and fraudulent statements made by defendant, but it is not necessary to enumerate them. It is alleged that these statements were known by the defendant to be false when he made them, and that they were made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to purchase the land; that she relied upon them, was deceived thereby, and suffered the consequent damage for which she seeks compensation. It is further averred that at the time of entering into the contract, plaintiff was a newcomer in Oregon, ignorant of the kind of soil and climatic conditions necessary for successful apple production, and had no knowledge as to the character or location of said tract, all of which was known to defendant, who knew that plaintiff relied wholly upon his statements, and intended that she should; that upon the failure of the orchard to produce a crop when it was 5 years old, plaintiff inquired of defendant as to the reason therefor, and he told her that the trees had been purposely pruned back and prevented from bearing while young in order that they might bear more abundantly when older, and, relying upon this explanation, plaintiff made no further investigation, but relied wholly upon defendant's statements, and continued to do so until the summer of 1916, when said orchard again failed to produce fruit, when she began an investigation and discovered, for the first time, that she had been defrauded. There are several elements of damage upon which plaintiff seeks to recover, such as the difference between the purchase price of the land and its actual value, the interest thereon, the money expended in cultivation...