White

White v. National Bank of Commerce

Good Law
99 Cal. App. 519·278 P. 915
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 19, 1929Docket No. 3810.California1,668 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Finch, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover $1586 alleged to be due for a quantity of tree spray, called Yolck Concentrate, purchased by the defendant. The answer denies that the spray was purchased from the plaintiff, but alleges that it was purchased from the California Spray Chemical Company. The defendant filed a cross-complaint against that company and the plaintiff, alleging that the defendant, as trustee of the estate of Richard Thew, deceased, operates and controls a large orchard of citrus fruits; that by means of deceit and false representations the cross-defendants induced the defendant to purchase the spray in question; that the spray was applied to the trees according to the company’s directions and that the effect thereof was to damage the fruit growing on the trees and the foliage thereof in the sum of $2,300. The court found the allegations of the cross-complaint to be true, but also found that the spray destroyed the scale infesting the trees. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendant against the company for $714, the difference between the amount of the alleged damage and the purchase price of the spray. The company has appealed from 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.