From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Belden v. California Fireproof Storage Co.

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Sep 18, 1934
140 Cal.App. 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)

Opinion

Docket No. 8001.

September 18, 1934.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. K.S. Mahon, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Clarke Bowker and Faries, Williamson Musick for Appellant.

Louis F. Labarere and John A. Cronin for Respondent.


[1] Appellant evidently predicates its appeal upon the fact that it believed the complaint to be one for rescission. Counsel did not set forth the complaint in their brief, but sufficient of it is set forth in respondent's reply brief to show that the cause of action is one for damages suffered by reason of the sale of stock to plaintiff by fraudulent representations, because in law the stock was void and issued without a permit. It is not a case of rescission of the contract of sale in any sense of the word.

As to the other questions raised by appellant, we think it enough to say that there was sufficient evidence to justify the findings of the trial court and that the findings were ample to justify the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.

Conrey, P.J., and Houser, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on November 15, 1934.


Summaries of

Belden v. California Fireproof Storage Co.

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Sep 18, 1934
140 Cal.App. 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
Case details for

Belden v. California Fireproof Storage Co.

Case Details

Full title:LEE BELDEN, Respondent, v. CALIFORNIA FIREPROOF STORAGE COMPANY (a…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Sep 18, 1934

Citations

140 Cal.App. 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
35 P.2d 1034

Citing Cases

Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.

They are, therefore, at variance with the conclusions now stated and are overruled. Boss v. Silent Drama…