Washington Cent. Imp. Co. v. Newlands

• Decision Date: 16 February 1895
• Citation: Washington Cent. Imp. Co. v. Newlands, 11 Wash. 212, 39 P. 366 (Wash. 1895)
• Parties: WASHINGTON CENT. IMP. CO. v. NEWLANDS.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P. 366

11 Wash. 212

WASHINGTON CENT. IMP. CO. v. NEWLANDS.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 16, 1895

Appeal from superior court, King county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Action by the Washington Central Improvement Company against George Newlands on a contract for the purchase of land, and on notes given for the purchase price. A demurrer to the answer was sustained, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bausman Kelleher & Emory, for appellant.

Clise &amp King, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The respondent brought suit against the appellant on a contract for the purchase by him of certain lots, and upon his notes given for the purchase price. Newlands, the appellant admitted the making of the notes on the contract, and set up an affirmative defense, alleging deceit and false representations. The essential allegations of the affirmative defense were as follows: "The note and contract hereinabove described were obtained of this defendant by plaintiff by grossly reckless, erroneous, willful, and fraudulent representations on plaintiff's part, in this that the time when defendant was induced to contract for the purchase of the lots above described, and sign the note, plaintiff represented to him, with the intent so to induce him, that plaintiff and others were building, and were causing to be built, on lots within sixty feet of those which defendant was to buy, a substantial brick hotel, to cost not less than $9,000; that this hotel was to be finished forthwith; that complete contracts had been made for its erection; and that the work was already under way. That, relying upon these representations, defendant entered into the contract, and signed the note above described, but neither plaintiff nor others were building, or causing to be built, on lots within sixty feet of those purchased by defendant, or at all, a substantial brick hotel, of any cost whatever, nor have they done so since, nor were there then, nor have there since been, any contracts, complete or at all, for the erection, nor was the work under way, nor has it since been begun or put under way, nor was any such structure or any at all to be finished forthwith at that time or since, but the representations made by plaintiff and all plaintiff's statements as above set forth were false, reckless, and erroneous." Then follow allegations of loss by reason of the fact that these representations were untrue. A demurrer was interposed to this affirmative defense, which was sustained by the court. The appellant, relying upon his answer, refused to plead further. Judgment was entered, and the cause brought here on appeal.

We think there was no error committed by the court in sustaining the demurrer to the answer in this case. The allegations of misrepresentations go beyond the land or the amount or character of the land sold, and relate to improvements which it is alleged were to...