Atwood

Appellant agreed to exchange a lot belonging to him for an automobile belonging to respondent, and after the deed to the lot had been executed and delivered to respondent, sought by this action to rescind the transaction upon the ground of fraud, it being claimed that respondent represented the automobile (a Buick) to be a 1926 model with standard gear shift, whereas it was a 1924 model and without a standard shift; also that he was inveigled into signing the exchange agreement and the deed upon the representation that the purpose of the documents was merely to allow respondent to search the title to the lot, and that he signed the documents without reading them. The trial court found against appellant on all of the foregoing issues and entered judgment accordingly in favor of respondent, from which this appeal is taken, it being contended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings and that the findings do not support the judgment.

We find no merit in any of the foregoing points. The findings are based on conflicting evidence and there is ample testimony to sustain them. It appears therefrom that appellant, accompanied by one Skellenger, called at respondent’s…