Ruhl v. Mott
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. Matt. E. Johnson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
These appeals are by defendant from the j ndgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The plaintiff by his action sought to enforce a rescission of an executed contract for the purchase and sale of agricultural lands in which he was the vendee. His right to relief is based upon: 1. Alleged false representations as to character and quality of the land, the depth of soil and the income derived from it; 2. A breach and abuse of confidential relations existing between the parties; 3. Promises made by defendant to plaintiff for the purpose of inducing him to enter into the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bailey v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Marten v. Paul O. Burns Wine Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Bach v. . TuchNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Delano v. JacobyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Crooks v. NippoltSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
3Cited by51 opinions
- Bacon v. SouleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Bancroft v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Carpenter v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Sullivan v. HelbingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Teague v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.