Hevener

Hevener v. Franklin

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 217·52 Cal. App. 594·199 P. 535
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 11, 1921Civ. No. 3271.California1,061 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Finlayson, J.

Defendants executed a hill of sale whereby they sold to plaintiff, for the sum of $4,250, certain personal property, the description of which in the bill of sale, in so far as is necessary to an understanding of this ease, is as follows: “That certain personal property situated and located in the building known and designated as No. 106 Magnolia avenue, Long Beach, Calif., and three cottages in the rear, described as follows: Beds complete 22; sanitary conches 12; . . . blankets 45.” Claiming that defendants had failed to deliver all the articles itemized in the bill of sale (that instrument enumerates many more than those above set forth by ns), plaintiff brought this action to recover the reasonable value of such of the articles as he claimed were not delivered. Judgment' passed for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

[1] Instead of simply suing to recover damages for breach of contract arising out of defendants’ failure to deliver the goods as agreed, appellant, for some inscrutable reason, unnecessarily charged respondents with fraudulent misrepresentation, hy alleging that the latter falsely and fraudulently represented to him that the furniture and furnishings situated in…

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.