holding that, where the defendant suggested in a motion for directed verdict that a specific sum of damages would be proper, the defendant could not subsequently complain that that amount of damages was improper
How later courts described this case
- holding that, where the defendant suggested in a motion for directed verdict that a specific sum of damages would be proper, the defendant could not subsequently complain that that amount of damages was improper
- “Fraud may be predicated upon an equivocal, evasive or misleading answer calculated to convey a false impression even though it may be literally true as far as it goes.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*148 TONGUE, J.
Defendant has petitioned for a rehearing upon the ground that onr opinion failed to consider defendant’s second assignment of error. By that assignment it was contended that the trial court erred' in failing to withdraw from its consideration the allegation that defendant represented that plaintiff would have “no problems” in establishing an employment office in Portland, as alleged in paragraph IV(2) of plaintiff’s complaint.
Because the judgment for plaintiff was amply supported by evidence offered to prove the misrepresentations alleged in paragraph IV (1) of plaintiff’s complaint, we did not consider it necessary to discuss in our opinion the further question whether the evidence was also sufficient to support the misrepresentation alleged in paragraph IV(2). In our judgment, however, and after considering the evidence offered by plaintiff in support of that allegation, we cannot properly say that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegation. It follows that there was no error in failing to withdraw it from consideration, particularly since this case was tried before an experienced trial judge, without a jury.
Petition for rehearing denied.