Shrader v. Slocum

• Decision Date: 22 June 1931
• Docket Number: 22855.
• Citation: 300 P. 524,163 Wash. 178
• Parties: SHRADER v. SLOCUM et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

300 P. 524

163 Wash. 178

SHRADER v. SLOCUM et ux.

No. 22855.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 22, 1931

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Benton County; John Truax, Judge.

Action by R. G. Shrader against J. S. Slocum and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

McAulay & Freece, of Yakima, and Roberts, Skeel & Holman, of Seattle for appellant.

La Berge, Cheney & Hutcheson and Ralph B. Williamson, all of Yakima, for respondents.

FULLERTON J.

In the early part of the year 1928, the appellant, Shrader, was the owner of an 80-acre tract of land situated in Benton county on which was an apple orchard. The respondents Slocum owned real and other property situated in the city of Seattle. In March of the year named, the parties made an exchange of properties, in which the appellant conveyed to the respondents the land in Benton county, and the respondents conveyed to the appellant certain real property situated in the city of Seattle, valued at $9,414.77 transferred to the appellant a note for $6,000, and gave to the appellant a mortgage on the land conveyed to them in the sum of $4,585.23. The tract conveyed to the respondents was within an irrigation district established by the federal government, and was subject to a proportionate share of the cost of constructing the irrigation works. There were also certain delinquent water assessments then due on the property, and the state and county taxes had not been paid for the preceding two years. All of these items were assumed and agreed to be paid by the respondents as a part of the purchase price of the property. The record is not clear as to the amount these items increased the purchase price of the property over and above that paid and agreed to be paid the respondents, but seemingly they approximate a sum in excess of $4,000.

The present action was instituted by the appellant to foreclose the mortgage given by the respondents to the appellant covering the Benton county land. In answer to the complaint of the appellant, the respondents set up fraud and overreaching on the part of the appellant, by reason of which they were induced to enter into the contract, and by which they suffered an injury. The fraud and overreaching consisted principally of misrepresentations as to the condition of the orchard on the land, and the character, quality, and productiveness of the land; it being alleged that the representations made concerning the property were false in each of these particulars.

There was a trial before the court sitting without a jury. The court found that the respondents had been defrauded by the misrepresentations of the appellant to the extent of $10,000, and entered a decree in accordance with this conclusion.

On the merits of the controversy, the evidence, as we read it supports the conclusions of the trial court. While the property transferred and conveyed by the respondents to the appellant represented actual values, the property they received in return was grossly overvalued. To be of the value which the respondents agreed to pay for it, it would have to have been, for its greater part, first-class orchard land. That it was not such the evidence very conclusively shows. The land as a whole is underlaid with a ledge of scab rock and hardpan, and on some parts of it the ledge is so near the surface as to render the land of no value for any purpose. On other parts of it the soil is so shallow as not to permit the growth of agricultural crops other than light hay crops; and crops...