Kent v. Clark
California Supreme Court
20 Cal. 2d 779 (1942)
Facts
Alverda Clark (defendant) purchased real property from Charles Kent (plaintiff) under an installment contract. After some time, Clark allegedly discovered that Kent had acted fraudulently in forming the contract. Clark issued Kent a notice of recission in which she, Clark, offered to give the property back to Kent if Kent returned the payments she had made under the installment contract less the fair rental value for the time the property was in her possession. Kent refused and, while Clark was still in possession of the property, filed an ejectment action in court. In the ejectment action, Clark raised Kent’s alleged fraud as a defense. The trial court held that a buyer who has maintained possession of property may not bring fraud as a defense in an ejectment action and ruled in favor of Kent. Clark appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edmonds, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 684,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 42,800 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
