Case Name: R. B. Brown, Appellant, v. George F. Rogers et al., Respondents
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1911-12-16
Citations: 66 Wash. 239
Docket Number: No. 9764
Parties: R. B. Brown, Appellant, v. George F. Rogers et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
[No. 9764.
Department One.
December 16, 1911.]
R. B. Brown, Appellant, v. George F. Rogers et al., Respondents.
Appeal — Review—Findings. Findings upon conflicting testimony, supported by the evidence, will be sustained on appeal.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Tallman, J., entered February 14, 1911, in favor of the defendants, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, dismissing an action on contract.
Affirmed.
Walter S. Fulton, George V. Ostroth, and R. B. Brown, for appellant.
E. H. Kohlhase, for respondents.
Reported in 119 Pac. 1135.

Opinion:
Parker, J.
This is an action to rescind an executed trade contract, by which the plaintiff traded to the defendant Kidd certain rooming house furniture, and the business in which it was used, for certain land and $100 in cash. A trial upon the merits resulted in a decree in favor of the defendants, dismissing the case, from which the plaintiff has appealed. The trial court made no findings.
The grounds upon which appellant seeks a rescission of the contract are that he was induced to enter into the contract by false and fraudulent representations made by certain of the defendants, touching the condition, location and value of the land. The evidence warrants the conclusion that the value of the property exchanged, including the money, was about equal on each side, and there is serious conflict in the testimony of the witnesses as to the making of false representations by respondents inducing the trade. We agree with the learned trial court that appellant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. No useful purpose could be served by a detailed review of the evidence here.
The judgment is affirmed.
Dunbar, C. J., Mount, and Fullerton, JJ., concur.