Cross

Cross v. Bouck

Good Law
175 Cal. 253·1917 Cal. LEXIS 663·165 P. 702
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 1, 1917L. A. No. 3685.California1,386 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sloss, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for deceit.

The amended complaint alleges that on or about the twenty-eighth day of September, 1912, the plaintiffs were the owners of certain real property in the county of Los Angeles, of the value of five thousand dollars. On that day the defendants represented to the plaintiffs that they, defendants, were the owners of an unexpired lease for seven years of an apartment house known as the Navarro Apartment Hotel, in the city of Los Angeles, together with a lease for the same period of the furniture and equipment in said house. On said day, for the purpose of inducing plaintiffs to transfer and trade their real property described in the amended complaint to the defendants, in consideration for said leases, the defendants knowingly made certain false and fraudulent representations to plaintiffs, with intent to deceive and defraud plaintiffs, and to procure their property above described. The pleading then goes on to describe the alleged fraudulent representations. Two of these related to the ownership by the defendants of the lease of the apartment house and the furniture therein, and their ability to assign such lease. The others,…

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.