Boyer v. Edgemont Investment Co.

This case is so closely analogous to the case of Sharkey v. Burlingame Co., 131 Or. 185 (282 P. 546), that it is unnecessary to treat at length the questions involved.

It is claimed that the misrepresentation as to the size of the lot could not be considered, because plaintiffs relied upon the misrepresentation that the lot would be resold before the first installment became due. Blended misrepresentations collectively may be the basis of such relief as that sought here.

From the case of Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Co. v. Bomar (Tex. Civ. App.), 169 S. W. 1060, 1062, we quote as follows:

“We…