Best business corporate lawyer

An action for damages for fraud, based upon alleged misrepresentations as to the acreage of land purchased, was barred where brought more than three years after knowledge of facts sufficient to put the plaintiff upon inquiry as to the fraud. Reusche v. Berling (CalifLaw Dec. 14, 1927), 87 CalifLaw 559, 262 P. 392, 1927 CalifLawCALIFLAW 75.A business corporate lawyer is a good companion in business litigations.

An action to recover damages for fraud in inducing the purchase of realty by misrepresentations as to the character of the land was barred where the facts showed that the plaintiff had knowledge of the fraud more than three years prior to the commencement of the action. Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. MacNair (9th Cir. Cal. Dec. 17, 1929), 36 F.2d 950, 1929 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 2310.

An action for damages by a purchaser of realty who relied upon positive statements of the vendor as to the extent of the boundaries of the land sold, thereby being lulled into a sense of security, brought within three years after the discovery of the fraud or mistake was not barred although brought more than three years after the acts took place. Edwards v. Sergi (CalifLaw Mar. 14, 1934), 137 CalifLaw 369, 30 P.2d 541, 1934 CalifLawCALIFLAW 816.

The plaintiffs in an action for damages for fraud in procuring their consent to the sale of oil lands were not bound to make an investigation until they had knowledge of facts which would put them on a duty of inquiry. Anglo California Nat'l Bank v. Lazard (9th Cir. Cal. Sept. 7, 1939), 106 F.2d 693, 1939 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 4722, cert. denied, (U.S. Jan. 2, 1940), 308 U.S. 624, 60 S. Ct. 379, 84 L. Ed. 521, 1940 U.S. CALIFLAW 1034.

In an action for fraud in the sale of a house, the statute of limitations had not run, even though the action was filed more than three years after the date of purchase, where the structural defects were concealed by fresh paint, and the fraud was not discovered until a date less than three years before the filing of the action, because there had been no hard rains, which would have disclosed leaks in the building, between the date of the purchase and the date of discovery of the fraud. Herzog v. Capital Co. (Cal. Dec. 11, 1945), 27 Cal. 2d 349, 164 P.2d 8, 1945 Cal. CALIFLAW 241.

Action against real estate broker for relief on ground of fraud is not barred by three-year statute of limitations, where it is filed less than three years after purchasers rescinded their contract with plaintiff who until then had no knowledge that broker had falsely represented that lot was not a filled lot. Kruse v. Miller (CalifLaw 4th Dist. Aug. 3, 1956), 143 CalifLaw 2d 656, 300 P.2d 855, 1956 CalifLawCALIFLAW 1650.