Craig

Appellant’s action is founded on section 316 of the Civil Code of California, which provides as follows :—i

He charged that respondents, as officers and directors of the Oceanic Oil Company, a corporation, made an official report and public notice concerning the corporation and its business which contained the following false and untrue representations :—

He avers that relying on the truth of this report he purchased twenty thousand shares of the capital stock of the Oceanic Oil Company for which he exchanged property of the value of eight thousand dollars; that the stock at the time of the purchase was worth three hundred dollars, and no more, and he seeks a judgment for seventy-seven hundred dollars as damages. A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained and plaintiff declining to amend, judgment was entered accordingly, and from this judgment plaintiff appeals.

His contention is that upon the authority of such cases as Woodland v. Hiatt, 58 Cal. 234 ; Cruess v. Fessler, 39 Cal. 338 , and Loaiza v. Superior Court, 85 Cal. 11 , [ 20 Am. St. Rep. 197 , 9 L. R. A. 376, 24 Pac. 707 ], a knowing misrepresentation of value is the misrepresentation of a fact within the meaning…