Hoowe

Hoowe v. Kreling

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 534·93 Cal. 136·28 P. 1042
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 1892No. 13634California788 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fitzgerald, J.

The complaint in this action, in substance, alleges that on the fifth day of May, 1887, plaintiff was the owner and in possession of a saloon and its *137 contents situated in the city of San Francisco; that on said date he was indebted to various persons, amounting in the aggregate to about $1,029.40; that on that date he was induced to execute a bill of sale of said property upon representations made to him by the defendant Kreling, that if he, plaintiff, would transfer to Kreling said property he could and would effect a sale of the same for a sum largely in excess of plaintiff's indebtedness, and that out of the proceeds of such sale Kreling would pay said indebtedness and turn over the balance to plaintiff; that plaintiff, relying wholly upon these representations, executed the bill of sale, and transferred the property in question, with the understanding and acting under the belief that he had executed the same and transferred the property to Kreling; that Kreling caused the name of defendant Kolbe and the consideration of $750 to be inserted in the bill of sale without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff; that when be executed said instrument he was embarrassed…

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.