Pierce v. Lukens
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
This is an action to recover from defendant the consideration paid by plaintiff to defendant for the purchase of certain bonds of the Perris Irrigation District.
It is alleged in the complaint that “in order to induce this plaintiff to purchase said bonds, the said defendant repre-' sented and promised in writing to this plaintiff that he, the defendant, would buy the said bonds all back from plaintiff in three years after the purchase and pay the plaintiff the price which plaintiff paid to defendant therefor.” Judgment passed in favor of defendant, from which and from the. order…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hills v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Herberger v. HusmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hulen v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- St. Louis S. F. Ry. Co. v. RichardsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Bertero v. National General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Pearson v. McKinneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Ennis Brown Co. v. W. S. Hurst & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1905
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.