Freeman v. Kieffer
Freeman v. Kieffer
Opinion of the Court
The pleadings and findings in this case are voluminous, and we do not deem it necessary to make any particular statement of the matters alleged- and found. In our opinion the findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment. While there was some delay on the part of the defendant in rescinding the contract made by her with the Centinela-Inglewood Land Company, we cannot say the delay was unreasonable and such as to deprive her of the right of rescission under the circumstances shown by the findings; nor can the effort or willingness on her part to effect a settlement of the controversy between her and the plaintiff growing out of the contract be considered as a waiver of her right to now insist upon its rescission. The CentinelaInglewood Land Company was simply the agent of the plaintiff in making the contract with defendant for the sale of the land, and the plaintiff having accepted the benefit of the contract as well as an assignment thereof from his, agent, is equally responsible with the agent for any fraudulent representations which induced it, and is liable to refund to defendant the money which she has paid under the contract, and which has come
The Centinela-Inglewood Land Company was a proper, although not a necessary, party to this action, and the court did not err in giving judgment against it for costs.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- DANIEL FREEMAN, Appellant,!). ALLIE KIEFFER, and ALLIE KIEFFER, Cross-Complainant and v. DANIEL FREEMAN, and THE CENTINELA-INGLEWOOD LAND COMPANY
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Vendor and Purchaser — Contract of Sale — Rescission By Pur- ‘ chaser—Fraud—Breach of Promise by Vendor—Reasonable Debay.—A delay on the part of a purchaser of land under a contract of sale to rescind the contract for fraudulent representations by the vendor as to the location and value of the land, and for breach of promises by the vendor to make certain improvements and to furnish water for the land, occurring under circumstances which do not render the delay unreasonable, will not deprive the purchaser of the right to rescind the contract. Id.—Efforts of Purchaser to Settle Controversy—Waiver.—Efforts or willingness on the part of the purchaser to settle the controversy with the vendor growing out of the contract cannot be considered as a waiver of the purchaser’s right to insist upon its rescission after such efforts have proved unavailing. Id.—Fraud by Agent—Responsibility of Principal—Assignment— Rescission.—Where a land company was simply the agent of the plaintiff in making the contract with the defendant for the sale of the land, and the plaintiff accepted the benefit of the contract, as well as an assignment thereof from his agent, the plaintiff is equally responsible with the land company for any fraudulent representations on its part, which induced the contract, and is liable to refund the money paid under the contract which came to the hands of the plaintiff, and is bound to accept a reconveyance of the interest of the defendant in the land purchased. Id.—Parties — Corporation Acting as Agent-—Cross-Complaint— Costs.—A corporation acting as agent of the plaintiff in the contract of sale to the defendant, is a proper, although not a necessary, party to a cross-complaint by the defendant to secure a rescission of the contract, and judgment may properly be rendered against it for costs.