Wood v. Nichols

• Decision Date: 10 March 1893
• Citation: 6 Wash. 96,32 P. 1055
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WOOD v. NICHOLS ET AL.

32 P. 1055

6 Wash. 96

WOOD v. NICHOLS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 10, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Mason county; Mason Irwin, Judge.

Action by Joseph B. Wood against H. P. Nichols and Spiro Bisazza to obtain a reconveyance of land sold.From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

For dissenting opinion, see35 P. 140.

C. W Hartman, for appellant.

Geo. D Blake, for respondents.

SCOTT J.

The plaintiff and appellant was the owner of certain land in Mason county, and he employed the respondent Nichols, a real-estate agent, to negotiate a sale thereof for him.Some time thereafter Nichols, as is claimed by appellant, informed him that Bisazza, one of the respondents, owned four lots in Galligher's addition to Olympia which he would give, with $300 in money, for appellant's land, and appellant claims a trade was negotiated upon that basis.It does not appear that either of the respondents had seen said lots, or knew anything definitely as to their value or their situation.A deed from respondent Bisazza of four lots was submitted to appellant, and the same were therein described as being in Galligher's addition to Brighton Park.The appellant found some fault with the deed in this particular, and also for the further reason that, according to a map which was inspected at the time, it appeared that there were two additions, platted at different times, and known, respectively, as Galligher's First and Second additions to Olympia.Galligher's addition to Brighton Park was a separate plat, without the city limits, and was not shown upon the map inspected.Some conference was had at that time between appellant and respondents and other parties with reference to the location of said lots, and appellant claimed it was represented to him that said lots were in Galligher's first addition to Olympia, and the trade was consummated.Some time thereafter appellant undertook to locate said lots, and found them, as he claimed, situated in a lake about 100 rods long and 75 or 80 rods wide, said lots being about 200 feet from the shore of said lake, and covered with water from 10 to 20 feet deep and that, in consequence thereof, the same were worthless; and he brought this action to obtain a reconveyance of the lands that he had deeded to the respondent Bisazza therefor.No tender was made, before the action was commenced, of the moneys which appellant had received from said...