Legal Opinion

Pembrook v. Houston

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1919No. Civ. No. 2897PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.

This is an action for damages for alleged fraudulent representations by defendant in negotiating a contract of sale of real estate. General demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and plaintiff refusing to amend, judg- ’ ment was given for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals on the judgment-roll.

Under the contract as pleaded the defendant agreed to sell, and the plaintiff agreed to buy, a tract of land described as the north thirty-two acres of lots 1 and 2 of fractional section 12, township 1 south, range 11 west, S. B. M., for four thousand eight hundred dollars. Five hundred dollars was paid…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hines v. BrodeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Mullally v. TownsendCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Grant v. SheerinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Lattin v. HazardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Younan v. Equifax Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1980
  2. Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Paolini v. SulprizioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Kaluzok v. BrissonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Kent v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942

10 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