Coffman v. Bushard
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff and defendant had by deeds effected an exchange of properties, plaintiff conveying to defendant a house and lot at Riverside, California, in exchange for a house and lot at Goldfield, Nevada, owned by defendant. This action was brought to rescind the sale upon the ground of fraud and deceit. The court found in accordance with the allegations of the complaint and decreed a rescission of the contract and a restoration to each of the parties of the property formerly owned by him. One of the frauds and misrepresentations was to the effect that the Goldfield property was rented for…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Bathgate v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Murphy v. CrowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Hinchman v. Point Defiance Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
- County of San Bernardino v. County of RiversideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Preluzsky v. Pacific Co-Operative Cafeteria Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- Mathys v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Conlin v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Keyes v. HurlbertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Duncan v. DuncanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.