Kleist v. Priem
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Bernard J. Flood, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
SEAWELL, P. J., pro tem.
Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against defendants, husband and wife, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the former in the sum of $11,360 as the result of an exchange of real properties by and between said parties induced by false and fraudulent representations made by defendant B. E. Priem, acting for himself and his said wife. The wives of the parties were made parties solely because of respective marital relations. This being so, reference will be made only to the principals.
The property parted with by plaintiff is situated in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Herdan v. HansonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Wassermann v. SlossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Bush v. WoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Berger v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Rabe v. Western Union Telegraph Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
- Gregg v. Western Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Wulfjen v. DoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Barty v. CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.