Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Ames
California Court of Appeal
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
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Etchas v. OrenaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- McFarland v. HolcombCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Brown v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- 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
- Joe B. RITCHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UPJOHN DRUG COMPANY; William Dement, Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Sellery v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Brooks v. BrooksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Williams v. Rosinsky Motor Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Berendsen v. McIverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.