Eade

Eade v. Reich

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 32·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 107·7 P.2d 1043
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 20, 1932Docket No. 8171.California2,235 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The above action was upon a promissory note for $1800 executed by defendants to plaintiff on January 4, .1928, and payable one day after date. Defendants by their answer and cross-complaint alleged in substance that plaintiff was the owner of 160 acres of land in Monterey County; that on the date of the note one Bauman, otherwise known as Schütz, was plaintiff’s agent for the purpose of selling this land to defendants; that Bauman falsely and fraudulently, with the intent to deceive and induce defendants to purchase, represented himself to be employed by the Standard Oil Company of California, a corporation, and that if they would purchase the above the corporation, through its agent (who, according to Bauman, was to arrive on the following Saturday), would lease 120 acres thereof for a term of five years at an annual rental of $1200; that defendants, believing and relying upon the representations, purchased the land from plaintiff, paying therefor the sum of $3,000 in cash, and executed the note sued on the balance.

On May 8,- 1928, defendants notified plaintiff in writing that they elected to rescind, and offered to reconvey the property upon the surrender of the note and the…

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.