Fehr v. Haworth

Trial — Findings—Fraud. 1. Tie findings of the trial court should specifically set forth the ultimate facts found in response to the issues presented by the pleadings. 2. Findings of fact are to be liberally construed in support of the judgment. 3. Fraud is not presumed, and an allegation thereof must be sustained by evidence reasonably clear and convincing.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hón. Carl A. Davis, Judge. Action for rescission of contract. Judgment for defendants. The court should have found on the question of the value of the merchandise; the condition of the trade; as to its being prosperous or otherwise; the question as to whether or not plaintiffs were skilled or schooled in the business involved; upon the question as to whether or not defendants made the alleged representations; as to whether they were relied on by plaintiffs; and as to whether or not such reliance was an inducing cause of the purchase. (Berlin Machine Works v. DehZbom Lumber Go., 29 Ida. 494, 160 Pac, 746, and cases cited.) It is true that in the record there is an effort to cover the field by a general finding that all the allegations of the complaint are untrue and all the denials and allegations of the answer true. Findings of this character have been held vicious. (Sterrett v. Sweeney, 15 Ida. 416, 128 Am. St. 68, 98 Pac. 418, 20 L. R. A., N. S., ¡963; Wood v. Broderson, 12 Ida. 190, 8'5 Pac. 490, and other cases cited.) From the evidence in this cause the court is justified in setting' aside the decision of the court below. (Stone v. Moody, 41 Wash. 680, 84 Pac. 617, 85 Pac. 346, 5 L. R. A., N. S., 799.) It is inexpedient upon the grounds of public policy that an instrument, known at the time to have been executed for the very purpose of embodying and evidencing the agreements and accomplishing the purpose of the parties, should be set aside upon the ground of fraud unless the proof be clear and strong: (McCall v. Bushnell, 41 Minn. 37, 42 N. W. 545; Johnson v. Rogers, 112 Ala. 576, 20 So. 929.) The fraud in a case like the one at bar must be established “beyond controversy” or by “the clearest and most satisfactory evidence,” or “to the entire satisfaction of the court.” (Mayberry v. Nichol (Tenn.), 39 S. W. 881.) Findings of the trial court, supported by the evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal. (Papesh v. Weber, 27 Ida. 557, 149 Pac. 1064; Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., 27 Ida. 407, 150 Pac. 25; Fife v. Tillage of Glenns Ferry, 26 Ida. 763, 146 Pae. 467.) The findings of the lower court on questions of fact are conclusive on the reviewing court. (Cameron Lumber Co. v. Stack-Gibbs Lumber Co., 26 Ida. 626, 144 Pae. 1114; Jensen v. Bumgarner, 28 Ida. 706, 156 Pac. 114.) The judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed because of conflict in the evidence if there is sufficient proof to sustain it. (Barry v. Cox, 28 Ida. 519, 155 Pae. 660.)