Ross

Ross v. Real Estate Investment Co.

Good Law
135 Cal. App. 563·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 256·28 P.2d 52
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 1933Docket No. 8064.California3,143 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Archbald, J.

September 30, 1929, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint against defendants, alleging in substance that on February 8, 1927, the latter represented to plaintiff Ross that two certain lots in tract 9761, in Los Angeles County, belonging to them, were •located at the corner of Avon Street and Burbank Boule varcl, and that believing such representation to be true he agreed to purchase them; that on February 28, 1927, Ross executed a writing agreeing so to do, “believing and intending that the same covered and described” the two lots referred to; that he paid $4,594.80 on the agreed purchase price before discovering that said lots were not so located but were in fact located at the corner of Lima Street and Burbank Boulevard; that such discovery was made on or about May 15, 1929, and that on June 14, 1929, he rescinded said agreement; that on March 12, 1929, he assigned such agreement to his daughter, the plaintiff Matilda E. Bach, as security for a loan. An amendment was filed to such amended complaint setting up as a second cause of action not only the alleged representation relative to the location of said lots, but also alleged representations of defendants to 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.