Legal Opinion

Ross v. Real Estate Investment Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 5, 1933No. Docket No. 8064PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARCHBALD, J., pro tem.

September 30, 1929, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint against defendants, alleging in substance that on February 8, 1927, the latter represented to plaintiff Ross that two certain lots in tract 9761, in Los Angeles County, belonging to them, were •located at the corner of Avon Street and Burbank Boule varcl, and that believing such representation to be true he agreed to purchase them; that on February 28, 1927, Ross executed a writing agreeing so to do, “believing and intending that the same covered and described” the two lots referred to; that he paid…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bancroft v. WoodwardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Pembrook v. HoustonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Roome v. Real Estate Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Collyer v. S. H. Kress & Co.California Supreme Court · 1936
  3. City of Miami v. NelsonDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  4. People v. HarrisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Sarafini v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

7 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