Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Ehrgott

California Supreme Court

Decided June 22, 1934No. S. F. 14821PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

This is an action for damages for fraud. Plaintiffs alleged that on January 18, 1927, they entered into an agreement with defendants to exchange an apartment house for a farm; that deeds were executed and delivered ; that certain representations made by defendants as to the character and quality of the land and the trees growing thereon were false, and knowingly made; that they were relied upon by plaintiffs, and that plaintiffs were damaged. The action was filed November 28, 1930. In order to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations, plaintiffs alleged that they did not themselves work on…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Davis v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  3. Security Commercial & Savings Bank v. SeitzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Burnham Chemical Co. v. Borax Consolidated, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
  3. Cansino v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  4. Mock v. Santa Monica HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. VanniniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

13 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