Kleist

Kleist v. Priem

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 664·51 Cal. App. 32·196 P. 72
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 1921Civ. No. 3638.California3,037 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Seawell, J.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, brought this action against defendants, husband and wife, to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the former in the sum of $11,360 as the result of an exchange of real properties by and between said parties induced by false and fraudulent representations made by defendant B. E. Priem, acting for himself and his said wife. The wives of the parties were made parties solely because of respective marital relations. This being so, reference will be made only to the principals.

The property parted with by plaintiff is situated in Douglas County, Oregon, and will be referred to as the Oregon property, while the property received by him from defendant, consisting of several lots, parcels, and tracts of land situate in the counties of San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Contra Costa, and Napa, in this state, will be referred to as the California properties.

The gravamen of the action is to be found in the allegations of the amended complaint charging false and fraudulent representations made by defendant as to the values of the several lots or tracts of the California properties, the state of improvements thereon and subsisting liens standing…

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.