Pace v. Parrish

Summary

The court held that plaintiffs could not recover for the alleged misrepresentation about the river-bottom land because its uncultivated and visibly rocky condition made reliance unreasonable as a matter of law. It upheld the remaining damages awards for removed hay, defective fences, the acreage deficiency, and the reservoir and water rights, concluding that the evidence supported the findings and that plaintiffs could affirm the transaction and sue for deceit damages after discovering the reservoir misrepresentation. The judgment was remanded for deduction of the river-bottom-land award, with all other portions affirmed.