Legal Opinion

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Ames

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 30, 1936No. Civ. 10964PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff successfully sought judgment in the court below' to recover some sums due under a contract providing for the sale of real estate. The defendants seek on appeal, unsuccessfully, to reverse the judgment on three grounds: that the evidence shows that they were induced to enter into the contract through fraud; that there was a total failure of consideration; that the trial court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.

The fraud alleged and relied upon was the making of a promise to resell the property purchased at a profit, without intent to perform.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Etchas v. OrenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. McFarland v. HolcombCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Brown v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Sierra Valleys Ry.California Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  2. Sellery v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Brooks v. BrooksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Williams v. Rosinsky Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Berendsen v. McIverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

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