ld, 187 S.W. 591; First Methodist Church v. Berryman, 303 Mo. 475; Townsend v. Shipley, 239 P. 787; Head v. Moore, 232 S.W. 362. (7) A party who desires to rescind a contract upon the ground of fraud must at once announce his purpose and adhere to it. If he be silent and continue to treat the property as his own, he will be held to have waived the objection and shall be conclusively bound by the contract as if the mistake or fraud had not occurred. Grymes v. Sanders, 93 U.S. 55, 23 L.Ed. 798; Harrison v. Ala. Midland Ry. Co., 40 So. 394; Elgin v. Snyder, 118 P. 280; Dellinger v. Gillespie, 24 S.E. 538; Brown v. Walker Lbr. Co., 122 S.E. 670; Galveston C.C. Co. v. Galveston, etc., Ry. Co., 284 F. 137, affirmed 287 F. 1021. (8) To entitle a client to set aside an agreement with his attorney it must be shown that the client has suffered some injury through the alleged abuse of confidence. 6 C.J., sec. 211, p. 687; Kisling v. Shaw, 33 Cal. 425; Goode v. King, 189 Ark. 1093, 76 S.W.2d 300; Howard v. Rayner, 94 S.W.2d 111; State ex rel. v. Fidelity Dep. Co., 94 Mo. App. 184; Kirchoff v. Bernstein, 92 Or. 378, 181 P. 746; Estate of Mallory, 99 Cal.App. 96. (9) The fraud relied upon by plaintiff as ground for rescinding the settlement contract is that defendant Leahy had concealed from plaintiff the fact that he had been interested with Snyder. Even if defendants had been the attorneys for plaintiff in February, 1934, or had become such by reason of plaintiff coming into the enterprise, the contract of settlement, made in December, 1936, could not be rescinded by plaintiff on the ground that defendant Leahy had concealed from plaintiff the fact that he had been interested with Snyder unless the alleged misrepresentation by concealment was a material matter of inducement in the making of the settlement contract and that plaintiff did not at the time of making the settlement have knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation and made the settlement contract in reliance upon the negative misrepresentation by
To do less would, incidentally, be inconsistent with the duty of uberrima fides that an attorney owes to his client. See Howard v. Rayner, 192 Ark. 721, 94 S.W.2d 110 (1936). Whether a violation of Rule 11 occurs is a matter for the trial court to determine and, because this determination involves matters of judgment and degree, we will reverse a Rule 11 determination only if the trial court has abused its discretion.