Groppengiesser

This action was brought to rescind a contract for the purchase of land because of alleged fraudulent representations on the part of the vendor, relying upon which plaintiff made the contract; and to recover money paid under the contract.

The court found all the allegations of the complaint true and all the statements in the answer and cross-complaint untrue.

Defendant's motion for a new trial having been denied, he appeals from the judgment and order. He contends that a misrepresentation to justify rescission must relate to matter which induced the party to contract, and concerning which the purchaser had not equal means of information. That the parties here were entire strangers, and plaintiff was told that defendant had no personal knowledge in regard to the property, and, furthermore, defendant submitted to him all the information he himself had.

The evidence is, however, conflicting upon this question. Plaintiff, according to his testimony, was a cook at San Jose. He saw the advertisement of defendant, who is a real estate agent, and called upon him to inquire. Defendant showed him a book describing different tracts which he had to sell. From these descriptions he selected…