Gaffney

Gaffney v. Graf

Good Law
1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 426·73 Cal. App. 622·238 P. 1054
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1925Docket No. 5173.California1,445 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages for fraud growing out of the exchange of two automobiles. The defendants’ cross-complaint against the plaintiffs also charges fraud in the same transaction. The trial court found that both parties were guilty of concealment of facts’ material to the exchange and denied recovery to both. The defendants appealed from that part of the judgment “wherein and whereby it is and was decreed that defendants and cross-complainants take nothing in said action.” The appeal is based upon a record prepared under section 953a, Code of Civil Procedure.

The facts of the ease are that on May 27, 1921, the plaintiffs sold a new Owen Magnetic automobile to defendants for the sum of $7,750, which was covered by a payment of $4,000 in cash and the delivery of a second-hand Daniels automobile, which was taken in the transaction at a valuation of $3,750. This Daniels car was represented to the plaintiffs as being a 1920 model, whereas in truth and fact it was a 1919 model. The allegations of the complaint are that if the Daniels’ car had been as represented it would have been of the value of $3,750, but that being a 1919 model it was not worth more than the sum…

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.