Legal Opinion

Gammon v. Ealey & Thompson

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 11, 1929No. Docket No. 3677PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JAMISON, J., pro tem.

This is an action for damages arising from an exchange of real estate, respondents claiming that appellants were their agents in the transaction, and had made false representations to them to induce them to make the exchange. The facts are as follows:

Respondents were the owners of about sixty-six acres of land, located near Modesto, upon which there was a deed of trust for $22,000. Appellants are real estate brokers, having their office at Modesto. E. A. Gammon is the father of respondents, and as their agent and attorney-in-fact, acted for them in the exchange of said…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Phelps v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Palladine v. Imperial Valley Farm Lands Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Keena v. United RailRoads of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. Crandall v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Leeper v. BeltramiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Willson v. Municipal Bond Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Jolton v. Minster Graf & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Stevens v. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co.California Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Vah Dah Dunshee v. BoadwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

11 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