Legal Opinion

Austin v. Duggan

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 4, 1958No. Civ. 22750PublishedCited by 8 opinions

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

  1. Finney v. LockhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Hartzell v. MyallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Earl v. Saks & Co.California Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Hawkins v. ReichertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Sheward v. MagitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Oakes v. McCarthy Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Forte v. NolfiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  3. Orozco v. WPV San Jose, LLC, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  4. Hecht v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Mahon v. BergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

3 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