Legal Opinion

Galusha v. Fraser

California Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1918No. L. A. No. 4611. Department OnePublishedCited by 21 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment. The object of the action was to recover damages on account of fraud and deceit alleged to have been perpetrated by the defendants upon the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest, whereby they were induced to purchase a lot in the Silver Strand tract, near Ocean Park, from the defendants A. R. Fraser, G. M. Jones, and H. R. Gage. The Guaranty Realty Company is also made a party defendant. Fraser, Jones, and Gage filed a joint demurrer to the second amended complaint on two grounds, namely, that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Consolidated Reservoir & Power Co. v. ScarboroughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Haley v. Santa Fe Land Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Harvey v. GriffithsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Shell Western E & P, Inc. v. County of LakeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990

16 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