Tatham v. Pattison
| Decision Date | 25 June 1952 |
| Citation | 112 Cal.App.2d 18,245 P.2d 668 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TATHAM et al. v. PATTISON et al. Civ. 18986. |
Krag & Sweet, David T. Sweet and Donald O. Krag, Alhambra, for appellant.
Robert N. Baker, Santa Monica, for respondents.
Defendant was the owner of a vacant lot in the Pacific Palisades in Los Angeles County, upon which he constructed a new house. By their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that defendant offered to sell said property to them. That for the purpose of inducing plaintiffs to purchase the same, defendant falsely and fraudulently represented the extent to which said property was filled ground. That by reason of such representations, which defendant allegedly knew to be false, plaintiffs were induced to enter into a contract with defendant to purchase said real property and the house constructed thereon. That subsequently, and promptly upon learning of said allegedly false representations, plaintiffs gave notice of rescission of said contract to purchase the property in question, offered the same to defendant and further offered to return to him everything of value received by them. It was further alleged that 'the house was not constructed in accordance with the Building and Safety Code of the City and County of Los Angeles'.
By his answer defendant denied any false or fraudulent representation or that he fraudulently concealed any material facts. Defendant also denied plaintiffs' allegation that the house was not constructed in accordance with the aforesaid building and safety code.
Following trial before the court, findings were made that the defendant did falsely and fraudulently represent to plaintiffs that said house was not constructed on filled ground when in fact it was so constructed. That defendant deceitfully and fraudulently concealed from plaintiffs that said house was not constructed in accordance with the Building and Safety Code of the City of and County of Los Angeles.
From the judgment accordingly entered against him and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant prosecutes this appeal.
The record reflects that the mother of two of the respondents, namely, Mrs. Lulu Tatham, a 72-year-old lady, was acting as agent for respondents who were endeavoring to purchase a home for her and her husband. Mrs. Lulu Tatham first saw appellant about the second week in January, 1950. This meeting took place upon the property in question. She again saw appellant prior to the first day of February, at which time she testified she asked him about the fill and that he told her it only extended across the back yard, and that there was no fill under the house. There is in the record testimony from which the court could reasonably conclude that appellant was aware of the fact that there was a fill at least under the porch section of the house, placed there by him, and that he did not disclose this fact to respondents.
Appellant earnestly asserts that there is 'an utter lack of any statements concerning the fill or the absence thereof' prior to the execution of the contract which created a mutual obligation on him to sell and upon respondents to purchase the property in question. While it is true there is evidence, which if believed, would sustain this contention, there is also testimony which would support a contrary conclusion. Since appellant's claims amount to an attack...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Citizens Nat. Trust & Sav. Bank
...not to buy had the latter been possessed of the information. Curran v. Heslop, 115 Cal.App.2d 476, 480, 252 P.2d 378; Tatham v. Pattison, 112 Cal.App.2d 18, 245 P.2d 668; Kuhn v. Gottfried, 103 Cal.App.2d 80, 86, 229 P.2d 137; Clauser v. Taylor, 44 Cal.App.2d 453, 112 P.2d 661; Rest.Torts, ......
-
Ashburn v. Miller
...of the fact is recognized by the adjudicated cases. See, Clauser v. Taylor, 44 Cal.App.2d 453, 454, 112 P.2d 661; Tatham v. Pattison, 112 Cal.App.2d 18, 21, 245 P.2d 668; Burkett v. J. A. Thompson & Son, 150 Cal.App.2d 523, 526, 310 P.2d 56; Central Mutual Ins. Co. v. Schmidt, 152 Cal.App.2......
-
Snelson v. Ondulando Highlands Corp.
...at page 330, 6 Cal.Rptr. 259; Burkett v. J. A. Thompson & Son (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 523, 526, 527, 310 P.2d 56; Tatham v. Pattison (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 18, 21, 245 P.2d 668.) It is also familar law that an appellate court will not disturb a finding or a verdict if it finds the evidence in ......
-
Brooks v. Ervin Const. Co., 253
...is concerned, such a fill represents the difference between a piece of real estate and a hole in the ground.' In Tatham v. Pattison, 112 Cal.App.2d 18, 245 P.2d 668, 670, the Court said: 'It must be held that there is in the record substantial evidence to support a finding that appellant wa......