Legal Opinion

Mack v. Eummelen

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 21, 1916No. Civ. No. 2002PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtConrey, P. J.

In this action it appears that the plaintiff and the defendant Eummelen purchased from one W. H. Bentley 840 shares of stock of a corporation known as the Bentley Ostrich Farm. Eummelen acted for himself and Mack in the negotiations and represented to Mack that the price was fifty thousand dollars, of which each of the two purchasers was to pay one-half. Mack paid twenty-five thousand dollars; Eummelen paid only five thousand dollars, and each of them received from Bentley 420 shares. The court found facts establishing fraud in the transaction, as charged by the plaintiff, and held the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Braun v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Allen v. California Water & Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Kawahara v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Citizens' Savings Bank of San Diego v. MacKCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API