Herrill

Herrill v. Rugg

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 492·300 P. 140
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1931Docket No. 7818.California1,064 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for fraud. The cause was tried before a jury. At the close of all the evidence defendants moved for a directed verdict. At the suggestion of the trial judge the motion was changed to a motion for nonsuit. This motion was granted and judgment for defendants was entered. Plaintiff appeals upon typewritten transcripts.

Respondents Rugg and Lisbon were partners engaged in the business of building and selling houses. Defendant Hitchcock was a long-time friend and adviser of the plaintiff, with whom he boarded and with whom he had been engaged as a partner in an automobile business. Hitchcock approached Rugg and- Lisbon and obtained their consent to present to plaintiff a proposition to exchange her home property for four houses being erected in the Rugg and Lisbon tract. Rugg and Lisbon agreed to pay Hitchcock $500 for effecting the exchange. In presenting the proposition to plaintiff Hitchcock represented to her that the four houses were of good value and were each worth $500 more than she was paying for them. She testified that she believed this statement and made the exchange in reliance upon it. She took the four houses, sold three of them, and retained…

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.