Merguire v. O'Donnell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
This is an action to recover damages for deceit and fraudulent representations in the sale by defendant to plaintiff of three horses. Plaintiff had judgment for $650, from which judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
About the 1st of June, 1890, plaintiff purchased from the defendant, at East Oakland, three horses for $400, paying $100 down and the residue to be paid the following day upon delivery of the horses in San Francisco. Defendant called upon plaintiff the following morning, in advance of the arrival of the horses, and received the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hotaling v. A. B. Leach & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Eichelberger v. Mills Land & Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1908
- Waniorek v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Murphy v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903