Arizona republican., 1922-03-13
TWO CATTLE CASES
ARE GIVEN REVIEW
BY SUPREME COURT

Misrepresentation as TO value
cannot ordinarily constitute fraud
because they are generally to be re-
garded as mere expressions of opin-
ion or traders talk inSolving a mat
ter OF judgment and estimation as
TO which man may differ is the
law as the supreme court found il
in Corpus Juris. when it handed
down a decision on Saturday, re-
versing the case OF Roy Sorrelis, ap-
pellant against J. Q. Clifford, ap-
pellee, Pima county.
These parties were owners Of cattle
ranges partly in Mexico and partly
in Santa Cruz county. They began
by trading cattle and finally they
agreed to trade brands. After the
trade was made Clifford ascertained
that he had not as many cattle as
Sorrells had said there were. by some
200. Sorrells said that he had COM
puted the cattle by the most COM
mon method known to cattlemen,
that is by multiplying the number OF
calves branded any year by q.
At the close OF the evidence the
defendant moved that the jury be
instructed to find for him. the mo-
ton being predicated upon the pro-
position that where the purchaser
investigates for himself and nothing
is done to prevent his investigation
from being as full as he chooses. he
cannot say that he relied on the
vendors Misrepresentation, and his
reliance on such representations,
and his reliance on such representa-
tions, however false they may have
been, affords no ground for com
plaint.'
The defendant appealed from the
order denying the motion.
Another case involving 4 live stock
transaction was reversed, that or
r. 3. Perrin, appellant against viii
liam M. and Kenneth NJ. Hughes,
appeIlees, Coconino county. Dr. Per-
rim had turned over to the appellces
some 900 head OF cattle but on just
what terms is disputed The plain
tiff and appellant brought suit
against the Hughes for breach OF
contract. He said that they had
agreed TO take care OF the cattle.
pasture and otherwise look after
them at their own expense for one
half the increase and at the end OF
the term OF the lease TO return 70 the
plaintiff an equal number OF cattle
with half of the increase.
But he claimed that after a time
they abandoned the cattle: that 400
had died and that he had suffered a
loss OF $4,000 in consequence OF the
breach OF contract by the defendants.
The defendants denied the terms
Of the agreement as related by the
plaintiff. They said that they took
the cattle with an understanding that
they were to sell them at an agreed
upon price: but that the cattle on
account of the poor condition in
which they hRd received them took
the pink eye with the result that a
large number OF them died. They
filed a cross complaint FOR damages
and altogether claimed that they had
suffered In the amount OF some
$4,000.
Judgment was given the defend
ants and appellees. The court re-
1 viewing the cross complaint found
that in no circumstances could the
| verdict as to the amount awarded
have been warranted and so reversed
| the judgment OF the court below and
| IN conclusion said: 1T is not nee
essary for us 10 consider whether
the other assignments error are well
taken or not. If other errors were
committed we will assume that they
Will not be repeated in retrial