Legal Opinion

Purviance v. Shostak

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 23, 1949No. Civ. 7561PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, P. J.

The findings of fact made by the trial court in this action recite that in November, 1943, plaintiff and defendant entered into a joint adventure to purchase certain real property in the city of Vallejo, known as the “Thoreson Apartments,” and to share the profits and losses equally; that defendant represented to plaintiff that the prop erty could be purchased for $21,000, and that they could finance it by contributing $4,500 each and securing a bank loan for the balance of $12,000; that the representation by defendant that the property could be purchased for $21,000 was false, as it could be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ford v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
  2. Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Menefee v. OxnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Schader v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Buckley v. Shell Chemical Co.California Court of Appeal · 1939

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Greenwood v. MooradianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. American Builder's Assn. v. Au-YangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
  3. Wood Building Corp. v. GriffittsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Moore v. Tristar Oil and Gas Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API