Legal Opinion

Eade v. Reich

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 20, 1932No. Docket No. 8171PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Lawrence v. GayettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. American-Hawaiian Engineering & Construction Co. v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Hunt v. L. M. Field, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Liodas v. SahadiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  3. People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. Cicone v. URS Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1986

16 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