Case Name: ISAIAH RENDELL, Respondent, v. J. H. SCOTT et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1886-08-28
Citations: 70 Cal. 514
Docket Number: No. 11095
Parties: ISAIAH RENDELL, Respondent, v. J. H. SCOTT et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 70
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
[No. 11095.
Department Two.
August 28, 1886.]
ISAIAH RENDELL, Respondent, v. J. H. SCOTT et al., Appellants.
,Sale of Land—Setting aside — False Representations—Matters of Opinion. — A sale ,of land will not be set aside at the instance of the vendee on account of false representations by the vendor of mere matters of opinion as to its value and productiveness.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
The action was brought to recover an installment of the purchase price of certain land sold by the plaintiff to the defendants. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
W. H. Beatty, S. C. Denson, and H. A. Carter, for Appellants.
Armstrong & Hinhson, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court.
The defendants by their cross-complaint sought to have set aside as obtained by fraud a contract by which the defendants had agreed to purchase a tract of land from plaintiff. The alleged fraud consisted of certain representations by which the defendants were induced to • enter into the contract for the purchase of the land. The cross-complaint was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained.
It is apparent to us that the matters alleged as constituting the fraud were matters of opinion rather than of facts. It was certainly matter of opinion when the plaintiff stated that the land was the best ranch in lone Valley, and was very rich and productive, and would produce fifty bushels of wheat to the acre; that a portion was good alfalfa land, and that another portion was rich in mineral deposits; and the other matters alleged may well be, classed under the head of matters of opinion rather than a false representation of facts. There is no averment which excludes the idea of personal inspection by the purchaser.
In such a case, the purchaser should exercise his own judgment, and is not entitled to relief in equity.
Judgment affirmed.