Alden v. Pryal
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of Alameda County. Crane, J. The defendant was sworn as a witness, and upon the inquiry of the Court as to what facts were proposed to be proved by said witness, the attorneys for defendant offered to prove by said witness the following state of facts: “Mr. Griffith.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of Alameda County. Crane, J. The defendant was sworn as a witness, and upon the inquiry of the Court as to what facts were proposed to be proved by said witness, the attorneys for defendant offered to prove by said witness the following state of facts: “Mr. Griffith. Well, Sir (to the Court), we propose to prove by Mr. Pryal and other witnesses, that Mr. Alden, at the time he conveyed us this land by certain metes and bounds, so many feet front, knew that he did not own that amount of land. We…
1Opinion of the Court
Mtrick, J.:
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. The premises as described in the complaint consist of a triangular piece of land at the junction of Telegraph (University) avenue, Oakland, with the Lafayette road, fronting ninety-six and sixty one-hundredths feet on the avenue, and two hundred and twenty-six and sixty one-hundredths feet on the road. The answer of the defendant Pryal alleged that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of the purchase money; that plaintiff falsely and fraudulently misrepresented the boundaries and quantity of the land, in that he represented he was…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Bonestell v. BowieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- McCornick v. SwemUtah Supreme Court · 1909
- Barnum v. CochraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Hildreth v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Emmons v. GilleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.