Legal Opinion

People v. Hamberg

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1890No. 20609PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Foote, C.

The defendant was jointly indicted with one Pilcher for obtaining money under false pretenses from one F. M. Parker. Pilcher, it seems, had pleaded guilty, before the present trial, and Hamberg was tried alone.

The charge, in brief, is, that the parties first mentioned had falsely and fraudulently represented to Parker that *470Hamberg was the owner and in possession of certain lots in the city of San Francisco, and Parker, relying solely upon the false representations made to him by the parties defendant, had accepted a deed from Hamberg of the lots, and given in return money and other…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ex parte RosenheimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. People v. ChuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Green v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. People v. BowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. De Noon v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. People v. GreerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. People v. RalphCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. People v. BurwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  4. State v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
  5. People v. AgnewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

27 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