Smalley v. George C. Peckham Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, from an order refusing a new trial, and from an order taxing costs. N. A. Hawkins and Charles Wellborn, Judges. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff sued to rescind a contract into which he had entered for the purchase of several acres of land in the county of San Bernardino on the 21st of November, 1910. He served a notice and demand for rescission on January 27, 1912. The right to rescind is based upon the asserted fraudulent misrepresentations made by defendants to plaintiff to induce him, and under which he was induced, to enter into the contract of purchase. These false statements are declared to be representations that the land was of superior quality and especially adapted to the cultivation and production of orange trees…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Grocers' Fruit Growing Union v. Kern Cty. Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
- Holton v. NobleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Booker v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. Sterling Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Cohen v. Hellman Commercial Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Estrin v. FromskyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Banbury v. BrailsfordIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- Tonini v. EriccsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933