Johnson v. Ryan

• Decision Date: 02 February 1911
• Citation: 112 P. 1114,62 Wash. 60
• Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. RYAN et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

112 P. 1114

62 Wash. 60

JOHNSON et al. v. RYAN et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 2, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman Judge.

Action by Lucy A. Johnson and another against Elizabeth Mae Ryan and another. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Grant A. Dentler, for appellants.

Frank S. Carroll and L. C. Whitney, for respondents.

MOUNT J.

This action was brought by the respondents to rescind a contract of sale and to set aside deeds conveying certain real estate to the appellants, on the alleged ground of fraud and deceit practiced upon the respondents by the appellants, and also on the ground of partial failure of consideration. The cause was tried to the court without a jury. Findings of fact were made in favor of the plaintiffs, and a decree was entered rescinding the contract and setting aside the deeds. The defendants have appealed.

It appears that the appellants were in possession of a building at No. 931-933, South C street in Tacoma, under a lease for two years. This building was known as the 'American Hotel,' and was conducted by appellants as a lodging and apartment house. In December, 1909, the parties to this action entered into negotiations for an exchange of certain real estate belonging to the respondents for the hotel property, which included the lease of the building, the furniture, and certain leases to lodgers therein. These negotiations resulted in an exchange, which was concluded on December 23, 1909, when the respondents deeded their real estate to the appellants, and appellants surrendered possession of the hotel to respondents. The latter on January 6, 1910, brought this action to rescind the contract, upon allegations as follows: 'The said defendants fraudulently and unlawfully, knowingly and maliciously represented to these plaintiffs that said hotel was free from debt except $1,665, and that said furniture was of the value of $5,000; * * * that rent was paid to the first of January, 1910; that there was due from roomers occupying said rooms sums aggregating $420, * * * which these plaintiffs were to receive; that after the agreement between said parties was made * * * the said defendants fraudulently and unlawfully took from the said rooms in said hotel furniture to the amount of six or eight hundred dollars; that said defendants fraudulently misrepresented to these plaintiffs the condition of affairs in said hotel regarding the payment of rent for the month of December, 1910, and that said defendants fraudulently and unlawfully misrepresented to these plaintiffs the amount of the income of said hotel, stating that the income would amount to $535 to $560 every month; * * * that there is owing in back rent on said premises the sum of $275; that these plaintiffs were notified by the landlord to vacate said premises by reason of the fact that the defendants had failed to pay their back rent as required by said lease; that prior to the commencement of this suit these plaintiffs tendered to the defendants the return of said American Hotel, including furniture, fixtures, and lease, but the same was refused by the defendants; * * * that the plaintiffs relied and acted upon the false and fraudulent representations of said defendants, and were thereby induced to enter into the above agreement.' These allegations of the complaint were denied by the answer of the defendants. The cause came on for trial, and the defendants objected to the introduction of any evidence, upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. This objection was denied, and, at the close of the evidence, the judge said: 'After carefully considering all the testimony in the case, I believe that there was more than an overreaching of the plaintiffs; that methods of misrepresentation and deceit were employed in connection with the change of property of such a character that the court as a matter of right and justice should set the transfer aside; and this is further evidenced by the circumstances of the removal by the defendants of a...