Wilder v. Beede
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra -Costa County, and from an order denying a new trial. Joseph P. Jones, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, C.
1. Action for deceit. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff. It was in substance alleged in the complaint that the defendant, acting by one Hutchings, his agent, obtained permission from plaintiff to place in her house a new piano of latest pattern in order that the same might be exhibited to intending purchasers of such instruments in the neighborhood; in consideration of which permission it was agreed that plaintiff should have the use of the piano for one year, with the privilege of purchasing the same within that time if she desired to do so. That on the solicitation of said…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Veazie v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Busch v. WilcoxMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Riser v. WaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Pope v. J. K. Armsby Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Allin v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- McMahon v. GrimesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Wilson v. San Francisco-Oakland & Terminal RailwaysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.