Visscher

Visscher v. Dixon

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 632·46 Cal. App. 210·188 P. 1029
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 1920Civ. No. 3046.California2,949 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Finlayson, J.

Plaintiff sued to rescind a contract whereby they had purchased 924 shares of the capital stock of the Brinks Express Company, a corporation. The asserted right to rescind is based upon alleged fraudulent representations. Judgment passed for defendants; plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied; thereafter plaintiffs appealed from the judgment and likewise from the order denying their motion for a new trial. Since the order denying a new trial no longer is appealable, the appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

The Brinks Express Company owns a number of auto vehicles which it uses in the freighting business. It likewise hauls mail for the government, for which it is paid fifteen thousand dollars per year. Plaintiffs, Wilhelmine E. Visscher, and Hugo K. Visscher, are, respectively, mother and son. It was the mother’s money that bought the stock. The son represented her in all her dealings with defendants and the corporation. The defendants Henry H. Dixon and E. M. Dixon are husband and wife. About December 1, 1913, Mrs. Dixon bought the 924 shares from former stockholders for ten thousand dollars. At the time when plaintiffs bought the stock, 921 shares stood in Mrs. Dixon’s…

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.