
    [Civ. No. 2595.
    First Appellate District, Division One.
    December 9, 1918.]
    J. M. STOTT et al., Respondents, v. W. W. JOHNSON et al., Appellants.
    Vendor and Vendee—Contract for Sale of Mining Property—Fraud —Conflict of Evidence—Findings—Appeal.—Where in an action to recover a sum of money claimed to be due under an agreement of sale of mining property the evidence is conflicting but ample to support the findings upon the questions presented as to fraud in the procurement of the contract, the judgment will be affirmed.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Daniel C. Deasy, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Thos. R. White for Appellants.
    F. R. Wall for Respondents.
   BEASLY, J., pro tem.

This action was brought to recover the sum of $5,250, claimed to be due plaintiffs under an agreement of sale of certain mining property.

The parties to the action were general partners operating a gold mi-ning dredge near the city of Nome, in Alaska. Plaintiffs owned a three-fourths interest in the partnership, and defendants entered into an agreement of purchase with plaintiffs whereby they undertook to acquire such interest. Plaintiffs by this action sued to enforce payment under the terms of the agreement. As a defense to the action defendants pleaded that the agreement sued upon had been rescinded by them because of misrepresentations of certain facts willfully and fraudulently made by plaintiffs. These alleged misrepresentations consisted of (1) that there were good values in the ground ahead of the dredge and to be worked by it that would make the dredging profitable, and (2) that one of the sellers owned a lease on valuable ground ahead of the dredge and to be worked by it.

The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiffs, and the defendants appeal.

The only specifications of error are that certain of the findings are not supported by sufficient evidence. There is no merit in the appeal. The evidence upon the questions presented was conflicting, but it is ample to support the findings of the trial court. The judgment is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., pro tern., concurred.  