Eade v. Reich
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The above action was upon a promissory note for $1800 executed by defendants to plaintiff on January 4, .1928, and payable one day after date. Defendants by their answer and cross-complaint alleged in substance that plaintiff was the owner of 160 acres of land in Monterey County; that on the date of the note one Bauman, otherwise known as Schütz, was plaintiff’s agent for the purpose of selling this land to defendants; that Bauman falsely and fraudulently, with the intent to deceive and induce defendants to purchase, represented himself to be employed by the Standard Oil Company of…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Lawrence v. GayettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Hunt v. L. M. Field, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1927
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Liodas v. SahadiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
- Cicone v. URS Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.