Abbott

Abbott v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Good Law
116 Cal. App. 665·3 P.2d 56
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 18, 1931Docket No. 8006.California1,262 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

Plaintiffs sued for damages for false representations. Before trial the action was dismissed as to the tire company. The cause was tried as to defendant Daum before a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of $7,218.88 Defendant Daum appeals upon a bill of exceptions.

Plaintiffs purchased certain real property from the tire company through its agent- Daum. Prior to the negotiations for the purchase, proceedings had been instituted for the widening and paving of one of the streets fronting the property. As a part of the inducements it is alleged that defendant Daum represented to plaintiffs that the assessments for such improvements had been fully paid and that said defendant knew that such representations were untrue. The suit is to recover as damages for such representations the amount of said assessments which was subsequently paid by plaintiffs.

Appellant first complains of instruction number 12, which informs the jury as to the amount of recovery to which respondents are entitled if the jury finds certain facts to be true. The criticism of the instruction is that it is a “formula” instruction which fails to include the essential element of knowledge of 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.