-
By petition for rehearing, appellant for the first time calls attention to a fourth case decided by this court involving a contract containing provisions similar to those involved here:Pacific States A. F. Corp. v. Addison,
45 Idaho 270 ,261 P. 683 . Appellant insists that the rule announced in that case is contrary to the rule announced in the instant case and is controlling. However, there is a clear distinction between the two cases. In the Addison case, supra, fraud in the inception of the contract — the basis of the rule announced here — was not sufficiently proven; the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations did not relate to the subject matter of the contract but concerned an incident of the contract practically unrelated to it; and the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were promissory in their nature and related to future actions and could not be made the basis of a defense of fraud.The petition for rehearing is denied.
Lee, C.J., and Givens, Varian and McNaughton, JJ., concur. *Page 175
Document Info
Docket Number: No. 5720.
Citation Numbers: 4 P.2d 657, 51 Idaho 160
Judges: BUDGE, J.
Filed Date: 10/9/1931
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023