
    NEAL D. McCALEB AND ANOTHER v. MATTIE BLOCK.
    
    May 20, 1932.
    No. 28,764.
    
      Christensen & Ronhen, for appellants.
    
      A. E. Clemens, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 242 N. W. 723.
    
   Hilton, J.

On November 20, 1929, plaintiffs (husband and wife) entered into a Avritten contract Avith defendant Avhereby they purchased from her an 80-acre farm in Olmsted county. Plaintiffs entered into possession of the land in April, 1930. The purchase price Avas $8,500, of Avhich $1,000 Avas paid at the time the contract for a deed* Avas executed, $100 or more was to be paid on November 20 of each year thereafter up to November 20, 1939, at Avhich time the balance then remaining unpaid Avould become due and payable. Semiannual payments of interest at five per cent Avere to be made on May 20 and December 20 of each year. No interest or other payments have ever been made. Plaintiffs Avere also to pay the taxes on the farm, but have paid only $á6.3á, the one-half of the 1929 taxes. Plaintiffs are still in possession of the premises, Avhich they cropped during the seasons of 1930 and 1931.

On August 8, 1930, plaintiffs instituted this action for rescission of the contract and for other relief, basing their claim upon false and fraudulent representations in material statements, claimed to have been made by defendant Avhich induced plaintiffs to enter into the contract. The case Avas tried to the court Avithout a jury, and judgment ordered and entered in favor of defendant on August 8, 1931. From that judgment this appeal Avas taken.

The claim of plaintiffs is that prior to the making of the contract defendant fraudulently stated to them that there Avas plenty of Avater in the Avell on the premises and that the Avater Avas good. Defendant did not admit that any such statement Avas made. No fault is found as to the quality of the Avater.

The court found as a fact-that defendant made no false representations regarding the Avell or Avater supply upon the land in question, and as conclusions of laiv found that plaintiffs Avere not entitled to any remedy or relief. In its memorandum the court states that the evidence did not indicate that there Avas ever any definite representation of fact regarding the amount of water supplied by the well; that plaintiffs’ inquiry was general in its terms; that the remark of defendant Avas made in good faith and without guile in response to an indefinite inquiry; that under the circumstances it was merely an expression of opinion or of praise, entitled to a liberal interpretation, and was not a representation upon which to predicate fraud.

The evidence shows that the season of 1930 was an abnormally dry one, none comparable to it having occurred since 1910. During the years of 1923 to 1929, when defendant, her son, and others occupied the premises, there had been an abundance of water.

Plaintiffs’ complaint stated that they did not learn until the month of July, 1930, that the well did not yield water as represented, and their testimony ivas to the same effect.

Not controlling, but of interest, it is to be noted that there was testimony of defendant that in November, 1930, after signing the contract to purchase, the plaintiff husband sought to be released therefrom for the stated reason that his financial affairs had taken a change for the worse and that the carrying out of the contract would be difficult for him. Also that on May 16, 1930, he again tried to be relieved from his contract because he had a sore arm that was bothering him. This testimony was contradicted. Defendant further testified that neither of plaintiffs ever made any complaint to her of any lack of Avater until after this suit was brought. This testimony was not disputed.

Upon the evidence the court might find that there had not been a-failure of the water supply as claimed by plaintiffs. The evidence Avas in conflict on that point. Its finding that there had been no false representations made as to. the water supply was justified by the evidence, as was also its conclusion of laAV. Under all the circumstances there was not a guaranty as to the quantity of water; the remark as made Avas one such as is sometimes referred to in the decisions as “trade talk.” In Anderson v. Backlund, 159 Minn. 423, 199 N. W. 90 (a landlord and tenant case) statements much stronger than the one here referred to were considered and held not to amount to a contract. The conclusions reached by the trial court should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.  