Brady v. Carman
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
TAYLOR, J. pro tem. *
filed an action for dam-
Plaintiffs ages for fraud alleged to have been committed by the defendants in the sale of a residential lot. The case was tried before the court without a jury. At the close of the plaintiffs ’ case, the court granted defendants’ motion for a nonsuit. Plaintiffs appeal from this order.
The material facts, as viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs, are as follows. The plaintiffs bought a lot for $15,500 in an exclusive subdivision in Hillsborough. Defendant Car- man handled the sale as an employee of defendant Coldwell, Banker & Company who in turn…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Leonard v. Watsonville Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Easton v. StrassburgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1984
- Jordan v. FlyntSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
- Secor v. KnightUtah Supreme Court · 1986
- Carleton v. TortosaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Field v. Century 21 Klowden-Forness RealtyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.