Perra

This is another of the Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands cases.

*939 In March, 1922, the appellees entered into a contract with the appellant for the purchase of a 10-acre tract in the district in question. The contract was made in the state of Minnesota, and up to that time, so far as the record discloses, the appellees had not visited or seen the tract so contracted for. The appellees came to California in November of that year and examined the land, but were dissatisfied with it because it was low and flat and had no building site. One of the appellees therefore spent about a week looking over the lands owned by the appellant and other lands in the vicinity and finally entered into a contract for the purchase of a similar tract, relinquishing the first. The present action was based on representations made in relation to the second sale, the complaint setting forth the usual false representations, first, as to the fertility and adaptability of the soil, and, second, as to the value of the land.

Upon the latter question the court instructed the jury, as follows: “And then the representation that the land is worth $375 an acre in value. In connection with that you must remember…