Legal Opinion
Wight v. Hubbard
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 13, 1952No. Civ. No. 18843PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.
This is an action for damages for fraud against defendants Mabel L. Hubbard, Kathleen B. Wirick and Paul C. Wirick, Jessie Northrup and Maurice Gordon. Defendant Gordon demurred to the amended complaint; the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, the action was dismissed and plaintiff appeals.
*607The claim of damages arises out of complicated transactions dating back to March, 1942. The allegations of the complaint may be summarized as follows: In March of 1942 plaintiff was. in possession of the Sherlandy Apartments in Los Angeles under a contract of purchase from defendants Hubbard and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Findley v. GarrettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Mortimer v. LoynesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Beadle v. NorthrupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Gerry v. NorthrupCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Northrup v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ransom v. Los Angeles City High School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Teitelbaum v. BordersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962