Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Tuttle

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 15, 1929No. Docket No. 5783PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

For the sum of $780 in cash and a promissory note executed by plaintiff in favor of the defendants, plaintiff purchased from the defendants a leasehold interest in a furnished bungalow court. Shortly thereafter plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for damages based upon alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the defendants to plaintiff in inducing her to purchase said leasehold interest. From a judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $881 and the cancellation of said promissory note, the defendants have appealed.

At the outset, appellants urge that in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Hines v. BrodeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Davis v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. George Cople Co. v. HindesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  4. Thomas v. HackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Hullinger v. Big Sespe Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. People v. GordonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Eade v. ReichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  3. Curtis v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Riskind v. Frank Meline Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. (HC) Russ v. PriceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022

1 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