Legal Opinion

Cross v. Bouck

California Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1917No. L. A. No. 3685PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for deceit.

The amended complaint alleges that on or about the twenty-eighth day of September, 1912, the plaintiffs were the owners of certain real property in the county of Los Angeles, of the value of five thousand dollars. On that day the defendants represented to the plaintiffs that they, defendants, were the owners of an unexpired lease for seven years of an apartment house known as the Navarro Apartment Hotel, in the city of Los Angeles, together with a lease for the same period of the furniture and equipment in said house. On said day, for the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rockefeller v. MerrittCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
  2. Davis v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Barbour v. FlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Grupe v. GlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Chapman v. Great Western Gypsum Co.California Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Vogelsang v. WolpertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  5. Commonwealth Fuel Co. v. McNeilSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

23 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