Duff v. Hogan
Before: Richards
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
RICHARDS, J.
This is an action for damages alleged by plaintiff to have been sustained by her by reason of having entered into a contract with the defendant, William B. Dean, for the purchase of real property induced by the false representations of his agents, Walter L. Hogan, and William Bums. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants Dean and Hogan for their costs, the action having been dismissed as to Burns. The plaintiff appeals.
It appears from the record that the plaintiff was the owner of a house and lot in the city of Alameda, upon which there existed a mortgage of two thousand dollars, when she was approached by the defendant Burns, with whom she had a business acquaintanceship, with a proposal that she should exchange said property for country lands. Burns had a working agreement with Hogan, a real estate dealer and broker, who was engaged in selling farm" lands in San Joaquin County, including a tract of twenty-five acres belonging to his codefendant Dean, by which Burns introduced to Hogan prospective purchasers and received as compensation for such introduction and any further services rendered in assisting subsequent negotiations, a part of Hogan’s commission. Burns having reported to Hogan the possibility of selling land to the plaintiff if her Alameda property were taken in whole or part payment therefor, Hogan examined her property, and a few days later with Burns accompanied her to San Joaquin County, and there showed her various tracts of land that he had for
[364]
sale, including the twenty-five acres above mentioned. After some negotiations, a contract was entered into between plaintiff and Dean, through the agency of Hogan, by which plaintiff agreed to buy said acreage for the price of $6,250, being at the rate of $250 per acre, payment to be made by transferring to Dean said Alameda property, subject to the mortgage thereon, and paying two thousand dollars in two years, with interest. The plaintiff had expected to be able to sell this acreage in a comparatively short time at an advanced price, and for that purpose listed it with Hogan, but no sale having been effected at the time the said balance became due, she visited the locality of the land and there made inquiries as to its value, and learned that it could not be sold for any sum approaching the price at which she had agreed to buy it. The defendant Dean having in the meantime disposed of the Alameda property, the plaintiff commenced this action for damages, alleging that the contract entered into by her was obtained by the false representations of Dean’s said agents.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)