Legal Opinion

Mabry v. Randolph

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 13, 1908No. Civ. No. 446PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.

A suit in equity t<5 compel restoration of property procured by fraud. The appeal is from the judgment.

The facts relied upon for recovery, and substantially as alleged in the complaint, are as follows: On June 2, 1905, plaintiff was the owner of an orange grove situated near the town of San Dimas of the value of $7,500, and against which there subsisted a mortgage of $2,500. The defendant Michaels, with whom the property was listed for exchange, on that day represented to plaintiff that the Maxon Realty" Company could effect an advantageous exchange of the grove for other property, and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Howland v. Oakland Consolidated Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  2. More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. David v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 1905

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Vallejo & Northern R.R. v. Reed Orchard Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. General Acc. Etc. Corp. v. Indus. Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1925
  3. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. ArthoferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  4. Wilson v. Rigali & VeselichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Kinert v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

13 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