Tucker v. Beneke
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. Z. B. West, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff sued for damages caused by the alleged fraud of defendants practiced in the exchange of plaintiff’s property in California for certain lots of defendants in Portland, Oregon. After trial,. judgment was entered in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appealed, September 8, 1916, from said judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. [1] Regarding the latter appeal, this court will take the usual course and dismiss it. (Roberts v. Colyear, 179 Cal. 669, [180 Pac. 937].)
According to the allegations of plaintiff’s “second amended complaint,” he was the owner, on March…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schmidt v. MesmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Simpson v. DalzielCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Roberts v. ColyearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Stevinson v. San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by14 opinions
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Austin v. Hallmark Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. McCulloughCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Chamberlain v. Ventura County Civil Service Com.California Court of Appeal · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.