Bancroft & Co. v. Heringhi
California Supreme Court
Evh>eitce—Fbaud—Sake.—In an action to recover goods, sold by the plaintiffs to E., and by bis directions delivered to defendant—the plaintiffs claiming that the sale had been procured by fraud, and that it had been on that account rescinded by them: Held, that evidence of transactions by which defendants and E. had obtained goods from other persons by means similar to those used in the case in question, was admissible for the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Evh>eitce—Fbaud—Sake.—In an action to recover goods, sold by the plaintiffs to E., and by bis directions delivered to defendant—the plaintiffs claiming that the sale had been procured by fraud, and that it had been on that account rescinded by them: Held, that evidence of transactions by which defendants and E. had obtained goods from other persons by means similar to those used in the case in question, was admissible for the plaintiffs. Appeal from an order denying the plaintiffs a new trial, in the Seventeenth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Dwinelle, J. The property in…
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Myrick, J.:
This cause came on for trial in the Court below before a jury. For the purpose of avoiding the alleged sale to defendants of the piano, stool, and cover, plaintiffs offered evidence of transactions by which defendants and Euphrit had obtained goods from other *121persons by means similar to those used in this case, to which defendants objected, and the objection was sustained. Some evidence had already been given in the case, regarding the acts of defendants and Euphrit in obtaining the property now in-dispute, tending to show a fraudulent combination between them for…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thompson v. RoseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kornblum v. ArthursCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908