Dickson v. Day

(after stating the facts as above). The contention presented by the first, second, sixth, tenth, and eleventh assignments in appellants’ brief is that, to be entitled to the relief awarded him, Day must have alleged and proved that' he offered to rescind, his contract with Baker before Dickson “accepted” his assumption of the payment of the notes specified. We do not understand that to be the law. On the contrary, as we understand it, the law warrants the statement that, if Baker practiced fraud upon Day and thereby induced him to enter into the contract, whereby he assumed the payment of the…