Filipan v. Television Mart
| Decision Date | 12 July 1951 |
| Citation | 105 Cal.App.2d 404,233 P.2d 926 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | FILIPAN v. TELEVISION MART et al. Civ. 4239. |
Wendell V. Harris, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Alfred Einstein and V. Lustig, National City, for respondents.
This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. The amended complaint upon which the attachment was issued contains three counts. The first is for money had and received. As a second cause of action, it is alleged that in August, 1949, the plaintiff agreed to purchase a one-half interest in a business operated by the defendants; that he was induced to make this purchase by certain false and fraudulent representations made by the individual defendants; that he paid them $7000 in reliance on these representations; that on August 15, four days after the agreement was signed, he discovered that the representations were false; that immediately thereafter he notified the defendants that he had rescinded his agreement of purchase by reason of said false and fraudulent representations, and demanded a return of the amount paid; that this demand was refused; and that he had received no benefits. The third cause of action alleged that on or about August 15, 1949, the plaintiff and the defendants rescinded and set aside this agreement of purchase, and the individual defendants agreed to return the $7000 paid by the plaintiff; that they have failed and refused to do so; and that they have been unjustly enriched in that amount. The prayer was for judgment for $7000 with interest and costs, and 'for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just in the premises.'
After a hearing on defendants' motion for that purpose the court entered an order dissolving the attachment on the ground 'that this is not a proper case for an attachment.' The question here presented is whether this action is one based upon an express or implied contract for the direct payment of money, within the meaning of section 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents contend that the gravamen of the action is ex delicto rather than ex contractu, that each cause of action is predicated upon the specific facts alleged in the second count, and that it thus appears that the action is one based upon fraud and sounding in damages.
The principles set forth in Philpott v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.2d 512, 36 P.2d 635, 95 A.L.R. 990 and McCall v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.2d 527, 36...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Perry
...Miller v. McLaglen, 82 Cal.App.2d 219, 186 P.2d 48, at page 52-53, again citing McCall v. Superior Court, supra; Filipan v. Television Mart, 105 Cal.App.2d 404, 233 P.2d 926. Respondents cite McCall v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.2d 527, 36 P.2d 642, supra, in support of the proposition that if a......
-
Stotland v. Mobile Homes Engineering Corp.
...but the cited case must be distinguished, since in that proceeding there was an accomplished rescission. See also Filipan v. Television Mart, 105 Cal.App.2d 404, 233 P.2d 926, where facts showing an accomplished rescission were likewise pleaded. We cannot accede to respondents' suggestion t......
-
Landry v. Marshall
...218 Cal. 153, 164, 21 P.2d 946; Weaver v. Superior Court, 93 Cal.App.2d 729, 732, 209 P.2d 830, 210 P.2d 246; Filipan v. Television Mart, 105 Cal.App.2d 404, 405, 233 P.2d 926.) The second cause of action, which meets statutory requirements, will support an attachment despite the joinder of......
-
Hayward Lumber & Inv. Co. v. Construction Products Corp.
...of Section 537 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, and a proper case for attachment is presented. Filipan v. Television Mart, 105 Cal.App.2d 404, 233 P.2d 926. Plaintiff corporation met the test required by the law, and it was error to dissolve the The order is reversed. WHITE, P......