Lathrop

Lathrop v. United States

Good Law
2 F.2d 497·1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 2086
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 15, 1924No. 4240California1,363 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Each plaintiff in error presents his own assignment of errors. They all rely on the assignment that it was error to deny their individual motions for instructed verdicts of acquittal. The evidence conclusively shows that there was utter failure to carry out the promises to place as a trust fund with the Pocatello Security Trust Company 30 per cent, of the cash received at the time of sale and 30 per cent, of the total amount of notes received in payment for the lots. There was also failure to devote any sum to the improvements which wore promised in the contracts under which the lots were sold. The plaintiffs in error concede this, but they argue that it does not follow therefrom that there was a fraudulent scheme or any fraudulent intent at the time when the representations were made, and they contend that conditions which arose after the initiation of the scheme compelled them to divert the moneys received from the sale of the lots and use the same in payment of other and *498 pressing’ debts arising from other undertakings and other town lot schemes in which they were engaged. But on the trial of the ease many circumstances were developed…

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.