Marston

Marston v. Simpson

Good Law
54 Cal. 189
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,122California866 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentmckinstry, J.

The plaintiffs, having tendered a return of the three hundred and fifty shares of the stock of a mining corporation, which constituted the consideration for the sale of the lands, prayed for a decree rescinding the agreement for sale and purchase, and that defendants be compelled to reconvey the legal title.

It is urged by appellants, that plaintiffs did not tender a return of the stock, or give notice of their intention to rescind the agreement, within a reasonable time after they discovered that a fraud had been practiced upon them.

It was, doubtless, the duty of plaintiffs to rescind promptly, “ upon discovering the facts ” which entitled them to rescind. (Civ. Code, § 1691.)

The Court below found that on the 6th day of June, 1876, the plaintiffs caused to be served on defendants a notice in writing, to the effect that they proposed to rescind said sale and conveyance, on the ground of fraud, and tendered to said defendants the shares of stock, etc.

. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the market and selling value of the stock, until within six months prior to the commencement of this action, which was begun on the 7th of June, 1876. The fraud…

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.