Sewell v. Christie
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hatch & Lloyd, Davis, Kemp & Post, and H. M. Bar stow, for Appellant W. R. Price. S. G. Barker, and Roland G. Swaffield, for Defendant and Appellant R. R. Christie.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
In an action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentations in the matter of the sale of seven thousand shares of stock of the National Gold Dredging Company, plaintiff had judgment against defendants Christie and Price for seven thousand dollars, a nonsuit having been granted as to defendant Marsh. Both defendants gave notice of intention to move for a new trial, but the bill of exceptions appears to be a bill on behalf of Price only. Christie appealed from the judgment, but has filed no brief in this court and did not appear at the calling of the case for oral argument. It will…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2003
- Sewell v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Sewell v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Clogston v. Schiff-Lang Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Cushing v. Building Ass'n of Society of New or Practical PsychologyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.