Legal Opinion
Wantz v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 26, 1934No. Docket No. 8080PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] Appeal by defendants from a judgment against them based on the verdict of a jury awarding $21,269.21 as damages for alleged fraudulent representations in the purchase and sale of lands and as inducement to plaintiff's entering into contracts for the improvement of the lands so agreed to be purchased.
It appears without question that the defendant Union Bank Trust Company held the legal title to the lands in question for the benefit of the owner, Los Angeles…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bone v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Shively v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Daggett v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Briggs v. McCulloughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Schenck v. Hartford Fire InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Grand v. GriesingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Beck v. SirotaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Hadley v. KrepelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Graham v. Los Angeles First National Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Mohlmann v. City of BurbankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.