Norton

Norton v. Rosenkranz

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 474·62 Cal. App. 226·216 P. 380
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1923Civ. No. 4481.California2,039 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tyler, J.

to rescind an executory contract of sale of certain real- property upon the ground of fraud. The trial court found on all the material issues in favor of plaintiff, declared the agreement void, and rendered judgment in her favor in the sum of $1,748.78. Motion for a new trial was made and denied. This is an appeal from the judgment.

Defendant Firth having died during the pendency of the action, Elias V. Rosenkranz and Title Insurance and Trust Company have by stipulation been substituted as defendants in his place and stead.

The facts as recited in the amended complaint show, in substance, that plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant Firth for the purchase of certain real property situated in Los Angeles County. The property consisted of two lots in a particular tract. The contract price of one of the lots was $800 and that of the other $825. In the performance of her contract and up to a period of time hereinafter referred to plaintiff paid for one of the lots in full, and there was due and owing upon the other the sum of $471.25. On the thirty-first day of August, 1920, negotiations were had between the parties looking to the improvement of the lots. Defendant, who…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.