TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rendell v. Scott

ISAIAH RENDELL v. J. H. SCOTT

Rendell v. Scott, 11 P. 779 (Cal. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
August 28, 1886
Docket
No. 11095
Citations
11 P. 77970 Cal. 5141886 Cal. LEXIS 833
Syllabus
,Sale of Land—Setting aside — False Representations—Matters of Opinion. — A sale ,of land will not be set aside at the instance of the vendee on account of false representations by the vendor of mere matters of opinion as to its value and productiveness.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The action was brought to recover an installment of the purchase price of certain land sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court.

The defendants by their cross-complaint sought to have set aside as obtained by fraud a contract by which the defendants had agreed to purchase a tract of land from plaintiff. The alleged fraud consisted of certain representations by which the defendants were induced to • enter into the contract for the purchase of the land. The cross-complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained.

It is apparent to us that the matters alleged as constituting the fraud were matters of opinion rather than of facts. It was certainly matter of opinion when the plaintiff stated that the land was the best ranch in lone Valley, and was very rich and productive, and would produce fifty bushels of wheat to the acre; that a portion was good alfalfa land, and that another portion was rich in mineral deposits; and the other matters alleged may well be, classed under the head of matters of opinion *515 rather than a false representation of facts. There is no averment which excludes the idea of personal inspection by the purchaser.

In such a case, the purchaser should exercise his own judgment, and is not entitled to relief in equity.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1889: 11897: 11898: 21901: 11908: 21911: 11912: 11916: 11917: 11922: 11923: 11924: 21930: 11931: 11975: 11976: 12022: 118892026peak 1898 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bickel v. Munger129 P. 958 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)
  2. Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn.225 P. 291 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)
  3. Schonfeld v. City of Vallejo50 Cal. App. 3d 401 (1975)
  4. Cooper v. Jevne56 Cal. App. 3d 860 (1976)
  5. Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co.227 P. 791 (Utah 1924)
  6. Rheingans v. Smith119 P. 494 (Cal. 1911)

Most recent

  1. U.S. ex rel. USN4U, LLC v. Wolf Creek Fed. Servs., Inc.34 F.4th 507 (6th Cir. 2022)
  2. Cooper v. Jevne56 Cal. App. 3d 860 (1976)
  3. Schonfeld v. City of Vallejo50 Cal. App. 3d 401 (1975)
  4. C. L. Glover Co. v. Farinacci298 P. 133 (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
  5. Coleman v. Dawson294 P. 13 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
  6. Stuck v. Delta Land & Water Co.227 P. 791 (Utah 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list