Nounnan

Nounnan v. Sutter County Land Co.

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 973·6 L.R.A. 219·81 Cal. 1·22 P. 515
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1889No. 12227California1,406 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Paterson, J.

I concur. It is clear that the plaintiffs did not rely upon any statement as to the number of cubic yards which would be required in the construction of the levee. The contract itself shows that the dimensions of the levee were subject to the direction of the engineer. It provides: “The levee will be formed in layers of such uniform depth, and the materials disposed of and distributed in such manner, as the engineer may direct.....The levee is to be built six feet wide on top, unless otherwise directed, with slopes of four horizontal to one vertical on the inside.”

The other subject is well disposed of by Mr. Justice Works in holding that, so far as the quality of the material was concerned, it is clear that the plaintiff cannot complain. The complaint charges that the defendant represented to plaintiffs that it had made a careful investigation, and fully informed itself of the character of said material; that this representation was made with the intent to induce plaintiffs to enter into the contract, and that they were induced by the representations to abstain from examining the premises. Under these circumstances, I think the plaintiffs would have had a cause of action against…

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

This, is an action for damages for fraudulent representations alleged to have been made by the respondent to induce the appellants to enter into a contract to construct a levee upon the lands of the former. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the plaintiffs refusing to amend, judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. From this judgment the plaintiffs have appealed. Several grounds were stated in the demurrer, but the only one discussed here is that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The representations relied upon as fraudulent are thus stated in the complaint: —

It is alleged that the plaintiff^relied, and had a right to rely, upon these representations, and that they were thereby induced to enter into the contract without investigating for themselves the matters about which the representations were made.

The contract is set out in the complaint, and bound the plaintiffs to construct a certain levee on the lands of the defendant, for which they were to be paid twelve cents per cubic yard of excavation. The contract was executed August 15, 1884. Estimates were to be made at the end of each month, and seventy-five per…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.