Millar v. Grimes

California Supreme Court

Millar v. Grimes

275 P. 446, 206 Cal. 798, 1929 Cal. LEXIS 675

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1929

DocketDocket No. Sac. 4114.

StatusPublished

This text of 275 P. 446 (Millar v. Grimes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Millar v. Grimes, 275 P. 446, 206 Cal. 798, 1929 Cal. LEXIS 675 (Cal. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is a companion action to McMahon v. Grimes (Sac. No. 4115), ante, p. 526 [275 Pac. 440], this day decided by this court. The plaintiffs in the present action, as stated in the opinion filed in action No. 4115, purchased a lot in the Hailwood tract from the defendant Bank through and by reason of representations made to them by defendant Grimes. These representations were the same representations upon which the McMahons relied in making their purchase, said representations having been made to the plaintiffs in each action under the same conditions and circumstances. They were found to be false and fraudulent as to the plaintiffs in each action. The same defenses were interposed in each action, and upon this appeal the defendants make the same contentions for a reversal of the judgment in this action as were made and considered in the action already decided. For the reasons stated in said opinion and upon the authority of McMahon v. Grimes, supra, the judgment in the present action is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

This is a companion action to McMahon v. Grimes (Sac. No. 4115), ante, p. 526 [275 Pac. 440], this day decided by this court. The plaintiffs in the present action, as stated in the opinion filed in action No. 4115, purchased a lot in the Hailwood tract from the defendant Bank through and by reason of representations made to them by defendant Grimes. These representations were the same representations upon which the McMahons relied in making their purchase, said representations having been made to the plaintiffs in each action under the same conditions and circumstances. They were found to be false and fraudulent as to the plaintiffs in each action. The same defenses were interposed in each action, and upon this appeal the defendants make the same contentions for a reversal of the judgment in this action as were made and considered in the action already decided. For the reasons stated in said opinion and upon the authority of McMahon v. Grimes, supra, the judgment in the present action is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 P. 446, 206 Cal. 798, 1929 Cal. LEXIS 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/millar-v-grimes-cal-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack