Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Lohr v. Delta Land & Water Company 57 Cal. App. 789

← Cases

Lohr v. Delta Land & Water Company

57 Cal. App. 789 Court Second Appellate District, Division One. Decision date 1922-04-11 Docket Civ. No. 3592 English

Contents

Majority

p. 789
[Civ. No. 3592.
Second Appellate District, Division One.
April 11, 1922.]
JOHN W. LOHR, Respondent, v. DELTA LAND AND WATER COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant.

Headnote

[1] Fraud—Purchase of Dand—Misrepresentations — Bescission.— Evidence.—Judgment affirmed on authority of Delta Land Water Co. v. Perry, ante, p. 314, Scott v. Delta Land Water Co., ante, p. 320, and Bradley v. Delta Land fy Water Co., ante, p. 790.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Frank R. Willis, Judge. Affirmed.
The facts are similar to those in Delta Land <& Water Go. v. Perry, ante, p. 314, Scott v. Delta Land & Water Go., ante, p. 320, and Bradley v. Delta Land & Water Go., ante, p. 790.
William Story, Jr., Lissner & Lewinsohn and Lewinsohn & Barnhill for Appellant.
L. M. Fall, Dudley W. Robinson and Hiekeox & Crenshaw for Respondent.

Action to enforce rescission of a contract for the purchase of real property and of certain shares of corporation stock; and for other relief. [1] The ease is similar to three others in which decisions of this court are being filed at this time. They are number 3590, Delta Land & Water Co. v. Perry et al., ante, p. 314 [ 207 Pac. 393 ]; number 3591, Scott et al. v. Delta Land & Water Co. et al., ante, p. 320 [ 207 Pac. 389 ], and number 3593, Bradley et al. v. Delta Land & Water Co. et al., ante, p. 790 [ 207 Pac. 395 ], This case differs from the others only in that it relates to a different contract and different property. The alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the defendants and their agents and the various eircum

p. 790
stances of the transactions are so much alike that a separate statement of the particular facts of this ease is not necessary.

On the authority of the decisions above mentioned the judgment is affirmed.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on June 8, 1922.

All the Justices concurred.