Austin v. Duggan
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
PATROSSO, J. pro tem. *
Plaintiffs instituted this action to rescind the purchase by them of a promissory note secured by a second deed of trust upon a parcel of real property in the city of Paramount, upon the ground that the same was induced by the fraudulent representations of the defendants. The case was tried to a jury which returned special and general verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs and assessed .damages against the defendants in the sum of $740.54 general damages and $1,500 exemplary damages. Defendants appeal, contending that the judgment is not supported by the evidence.
Viewed in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Finney v. LockhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Hartzell v. MyallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Earl v. Saks & Co.California Supreme Court · 1951
- Hawkins v. ReichertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Sheward v. MagitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
3Cited by8 opinions
- Oakes v. McCarthy Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
- Forte v. NolfiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Hecht v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Mahon v. BergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.