Thе respondents purchased from the appellant a quarter section of unimproved land in North Dakota, and, as the purchase price therefor, paid to him the sum of $1,600 in money, and conveyed to him 40 acres of land in Minnesota then worth $1,200. During the negotiations which culminated in this purchase, the appellant and the respondent Erickson went to North Dakota to exаmine the land. They examined a tract of land, pointed out by the appellant, which both, at the time, believed to be the lаnd in question. The purchase was thereafter consummated in the belief, on the part of the respondents, that they were buying, and, on the part of the appellant,, that he,was selling, the land which had been shown to Erickson. The respondents purchasеd the land for investment and did not visit it for several years after their purchase. When they next visited it, they discovered that the land cоnveyed to them was not the land examined by Erickson. They never intended to buy the land in fact conveyed to them. On discovering the mistakе, they promptly executed and tendered to the appellant a quitclaim deed for the land,, and demanded back the purchase price, with interest, together with the taxes they had paid and the expenses they had. incurred. The* appеllant refused to accept the deed or to return the purchase price. He had disposed of the 40 acres оf Minnesota land and hence could not reconvey that.
The complaint, after setting forth sufficient facts to show a rescission, alleged that the respondents had been damaged in a sum which is the aggregate of the amounts demanded back from the appellant as purchase price, taxes, expenses and interest. The demand for judgment was for this amount and for such further or other judgment as the court might direct.
At the trial the appellant took the position that the action was. in equity and for trial by the court, and not for trial by a jury. It was tried as an action in equity for rescission in accordance with his contention. He now insists that the complaint states a cause ' of action for damages only, and not for rescission. We think it sufficient to sustain an action for rescission. Furthermore, having taken the position during the trial that the action was not for damages, but for rescission, and the case having been tried upon that theоry, he cannot now reverse his position. Peteler Portable Ry. Mnfg. Co. v. N. W. Adamant Mnfg. Co.
The complaint charges that the appellant fraudulently, with intent to cheat and deceive, showed to Erickson a different tract as the land in question. The court found thаt he did in fact show to Erickson a different tract, but that he, himself, was honestly mistaken in the location of the land, and had no intent to cheat or defraud. The-findings eliminate the questions in respect to fraud and deceit raised by the appellant.
The actiоn having been tried as an action for rescission, if the respondents established sufficient facts to justify that relief, it is not important thаt they failed to establish some of the other facts alleged in their complaint.
Unless the respondents are barred by laches, the facts found are sufficient to justify a rescission of the transaction. 20 Am. & Eng. Enc. (2d ed.) 811; 24 Id. 618; Benson v. Markoe,
After discovering the mistake, the respondents acted promptly, bm more than eight years elapsed, after the making of the original сontract, before they made the discovery. The appellant insists that they cannot rescind after such delay. The land wаs wild, unimproved prairie in North Dakota and was purchased solely for investment. The respondents lived in Minnesota, did not ocсupy or use the land, had no occasion to visit it, and nothing is disclosed in the record from which it may be inferred that they ought to have discovered the mistake earlier.
There is no statute of limitations that applies to such cases. They are governеd by the equitable doctrine of laches. A party who comes into a court of equity must act with reasonable diligence, under all the circumstances, or he is chargeable with laches. But where it is sought to rescind a contract or deed on the grоund of mistake, a party is not guilty of laches until he discovers the mistake, or until he is chargeable with knowledge of facts from which, in thе exercise of proper diligence, he ought to have discovered it. Wall
AYliile the evidence is conflicting, espеcially upon the question as to wbetber tbe land shown to Erickson was tbe land in controversy or a different tract, it is sufficient to sustаin tbe findings of tbe trial court. Tbe question as to wbetber tbe land shown to Erickson was tbe land in controversy, or a different tract, was one of tbe questions submitted to a jury. They found against tbe appellant on this issue, but in bis favor on tbe issue of fraud. Tbe facts found by tbe jury were adopted by tbe trial court as a part of its findings and are sufficiently supported by tbe evidence.
Tbe appellant аssigns as error tbe denial of bis motion to amend tbe findings of tbe trial court. Tbe proposed amendments were all as to evidentiary facts and tbe motion was properly denied. Butler v. Bohn,
He also assigns as error certain rulings of tbe trial court as to tbe admission of evidence. An examination of tbe record fails to disclose any substantial error.
Judgment affirmed.