Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Cal. 514

Rendell v. Scott

California Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-08-28

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.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““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 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.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Lee v. McClelland

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-08-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2022

19 state decisions

40188618901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court.

¶1The 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.

¶2It 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 *515rather than a false representation of facts. There is no averment which excludes the idea of personal inspection by the purchaser.

¶3In such a case, the purchaser should exercise his own judgment, and is not entitled to relief in equity.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/70/cal/514 · .json · Public domain