Hutchason

Hutchason v. Spinks

Good Law
1906 Cal. App. LEXIS 159·3 Cal. App. 291·85 P. 132
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1906Civ. No. 186.California1,091 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Smith, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant from an order denying his motion for a new trial. It is somewhat difficult to determine from the complaint the nature of the action. It appears, however, that the cause of action originated in the lease or contract of date April 13, 1901, set out in the .complaint, and in the subsequent conduct of the defendant. This contract purports to be a lease of the " dental office and business” of the defendant in the city of Los Angeles, and there is contained in it, among other provisions, an agreement by the defendant that he “will not, during the term thereof, open or conduct any dental office in the city of Los Angeles, or engage directly or indirectly in the practice of dentistry in said city”; and we construe the contract, also, as being in effect a transfer of the goodwill of the business. (Civ. Code, sec. 992.) It is further alleged that the defendant, as an inducement for plaintiff to enter into the contract, represented to them that he was receiving from the business the sum of $1,800 per month, and that this representation was untrue, the business being worth not to exceed $250 per month; and that the plaintiffs, relying upon these…

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.