Legal Opinion

Perry v. Ayers

California Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1911No. Sac. No. 1872PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant and from an order denying a motion for new trial.

The action is one to recover damages for deceit. The complaint alleges that in April, 1907, the defendant owned a one-fourth interest in a.n agreement under which he and others had a right to purchase certain mining property known as the Crystalline Mine, and that the defendant was in charge of the development of said mine. It is alleged that on the twenty-ninth day of April, 1907, the defendant represented to the plaintiff that a large and valuable vein of ore over ten feet in thickness…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Duncan v. RamishCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Spreckels v. GorrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Norris v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Pigeon v. W. P. Fuller & Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Bell v. Southern Pacific R.R. Co.California Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Transportation Guarantee Co. v. JellinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Divani v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Cazaurang v. CarreyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Ryan v. Mike-Ron Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. Hastaran v. MarchandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API