, 1892-05-06
WANTED DAMAGES.
An Appeal From the Superior
Court Of King.
A Real Estate transaction ia the
Oity oil seattle In which am Ap-
peal was Taken and the Judg-
ment Affirmed.


y - - = sAAe Aos
ment Affirmed
rNT4: IN 4;. a4,
INogioe7-4Aih eeolsloiis - 'l1e sepreili'
cOurJWlll appearln IHE DAIRY ana M EEK
LIZ TRIBUNE
ii a Saars ras,,a,, cie,,t ~ a u et;nsa,
annaIlapt' : =
NIX 97o plaintiff 7,I7rahasa5 IA dafa,,5
ant hlocl Q ~ I3itI a15it;l, ~ AZ
div of geatfIa consistlne ~ tUal,g
lofs f tb s,35,, f flg, dIlos
vino tberafo1. yya,i,a I3fy rIaad fTe
lois were renresertad On the a
fan7a4t e,ybfbi+a1 ~ ,ii,f;e - h;
tyuantZ, five fact y; and one hppdred asi
~ dentb Sane tiTae affeI tba I911rc,ass
1iainfi haiy, tt biaol slI,.,,e,-ad s
eavared thaf dafaSdant did 75at 49, titie
II, af Ia11d be,1f sit feet il, with
rI1nniY,fgf across m nagf5 s;da ~ sa;d
bIocT evie IT,, soma ynista Ia in the on II
aI,7Iat m cfba,s r,rcs tJ1a+ tIa aa9st
ern tiaY of lois were short a hont si,Ttx faat
ITl1oT7a faiII,ra M IA II ~ IL
,oPa,1+ T4:+b az goflt -; :; (,
bronobt bis action for fIan,aoas s1ieoino
that fine defendant had 1a1,raseT1tad to him
fhaf ia vas the rwnar ~ iii fssa;d bIaah
g.. fbat contained % lots Sit6 a "a
95 feef a1,Gl q danfh w 10n faat a1yd III
renrasanfed thaf.eertain Of The I9ts f,o,,+ad
~ \ street called ilT2,5z,,a efraaf
tiff rntJpd h
tbat eI,cb lleT9TesaI, ta+io31e ye,,e 9ala III
the defendant, To induce the nlaistiff tSo
nllrcl7asa ajI N. said MOCK and fhat ,aIai5,1
Tiff raIvinos 1lp,1 sIIcF, o,,s i1l
11l7rchasa tbaf sai6
I1era fal Ice and untrue in tbst defando13t
was MI tI,e owner and had ~ titla II j
narttay, If fba hIocIr dascT;had and tbot
there was "a such street Al Roz street IA
fandant denies each and eva11 IF ~
alIagations If the enn9nIairt excaptiTo II, ] I
he Tenresented that he Ias fl7e iy1,a7. f "a
certaf11 trat 81 Iand Il said ~
known as bIoclr of said RalIaTre a M
tion TTnnn tlla iss,7ns th17s y9rasanfad m I
parties went to trial and ] Verdict of 90
fbousand dollars was rat1T,,ad fo,.5,Ioi,,
tiff. judgement was entered and an anneaI
taken to fiis court.
The nrincinal I conten+inr rf tho dafand
ant Is that to sI1pnort An action IF tl,is Tind
III must he ALLEGED and nroven NOT onIv
that The renresentationsi made ana relied
nor, NV car bt IL
they n11s have been f1aS ~ II aa,. 9O
untrue bv the vendor. or to nse the xyorS.
Of counsel MTbat the AK of onaission ~
which the l1noI1e 90 Is Obtained g,a .
wiIIfTIl and thaf n hsenee cf faiTd II, III J
mart of tna vendor the nIlrel,a sa,, ,1,71et .a
sort IL 4 coI1rt ef eG11itv III obtain j rasoi
sion of his contract,t While He #. cannot he
disnuted fhaf a GREAT Il AL "A antboTitv a
be marsballed which will snnnort that hat
theory III is also triIa that tba tbaoT,g of ~
sponEent is aaI1allv sustained hFIlalltInor;t1y
and We think. ~ fhe halter reaeo11i,,55,
There is no donbt hut. fhaf tbe nlaintiffff
would Be entitled to theA Aeon1tahle reIief IA
a recissio,l IL tha contract IF he asie - =.
bnt there II 10 reaso eiFber 1vhv - ba con1d
not compel the PARTY who mas sold him
more than he can deliver. ~ retI7rr1 tha AZ
cess navroent. aud tbat is, siY,9Ss11y y1bof i
amounts to. II Il nof' q case IN deceif and
a different rule al. damage will annIv alto.
gether There Il ~ deeeit aIlayfeS # ist'i &
an action under fhe sfatnte Where 7tbs
comnlaiT7f II i Main and 'coneisa stafan,ent I
of facts constitlfing a cause of action In
this case the sta+arDeI,t Il tIlat ~ oasc,, II
false ranresan tafioos roacla =
the plaintiff naigI for more iand HAN ha ~
ceived There certainly can he notbiney
ineuuitable Ia tbis procedure ifa il1sf meas
11re of danaaoes iS an911lo4rad. 'rrhe ,e,,,,
chaser nays for wbat be gets ill., vealsor pSl,r
qets nav for what he has t9 sellNthis ie iii
"a is enfitlad IL Iat liz ,,istaira IL
ever 81 innocant n ia evanfIyT 49,, ~
the sama nri,9cinI 4l1at sa,. Y,
enforce specific nerformanee of ti9e mart ~
the contract which can III rerforn1aad MI
and recejve n9,oensafic,7 4 gyas f
tbe haianee caaa ia i1,1oIsa ~
aid Of a court of enIitv t., enforce fbs ,e,1
fOrnaIca III 4 cnnfraef and tha oG,95t III I,
ING obtained i115isl]ictia15 Of tho case a.
that purpose will. instead ef 1I1tfiro M
parties to tine ex nensa f seel1ina snetba
form proceed "a I etern1ina and vi
instraent, of all their riosbts and ayva,d tSo
DAMAGES which is sfrictiv s,aatina - J
nrovi3ce If a conrt of law Rrt in sfbis ,s
case tbe Contract ~ far as # can h. sall7 az
forced ID already nerforn7ed and al tbee si, i
nothing to Give coI1Tf If e9n;ty il1risSio'
tion. Damages for the baiance' 'is oil tbat
Is left. We cannot agree with tbe anneIv
LIANT that the cases cifed Nv rasnonde,sIf az
nnf sustain resnondentis fbooTv ~ Ia j.
great many Of fbe cases lynch vs. Me- arY
camille Trust camnanv ~ Tad Pan Sae
ID NOT. as stated by anneIIant a easa Of
rescission IF contract 61f IN III corfra ~
the defendant offered ia rescir7d the CON.
tract ana pay back the nnrchase money ra.
ceiyed which fhe nlaintiH deelinad and
brought his action ff1r Clamaues Tbaf - y
was almost identical IA, All its rarticnI aTs
with The one at bar Sale was Inaea I11,,
the representations of a real estate dealeT
in whose hands TIE nronertv had haen
placed for sale Nv tbe owner tha ,dafand.
ant in the action. The AGENT brown ypant
to the annIicanf and showed a1-t tha hleclg leaIg
purchased. Representing tbaf II inclndsd
all the land living between certain fencas .
pointed out on three sides and eTtangiino, Si
to the river. and that fine fronfaee was 81
hundred feet Tie annIicant bg s',s,,orr - 80