Mosher v. Lack
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
BUCK, P. J., pro tem.
This is an action to rescind a contract to purchase lands on the ground that the contract was entered into as a result of false and fraudulent representations and mistake in regard to the amount of land conveyed. The case was tried by the court without a jury and findings were made establishing the mistake but negativing, the fraudulent representations^ a judgment was given for plaintiff from which this appeal is taken by the defendant under the alternative method. ,
By the terms of the contract in question, which was made on November 2, 1914, the appellant agreed to sell…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Eichelberger v. Mills Land & Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- Hannah v. SteinmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Quarg v. ScherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Fountain v. Semi-Tropic Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- McComb v. GilkesonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1909
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Nathanson v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Brooks v. JensenIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Laiblin v. San Joaquin Agricultural Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1923
- Dohrman v. J.B. Roof, IncorporatedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.