endorsing “the rule that where an officer or a director of a corporation has knowledge of special facts affecting the value of its stock, he cannot deal with a stockholder at arm’s length but is under a duty to disclose such facts before making a purchase or sale of the stock”
How later courts described this case
- endorsing “the rule that where an officer or a director of a corporation has knowledge of special facts affecting the value of its stock, he cannot deal with a stockholder at arm’s length but is under a duty to disclose such facts before making a purchase or sale of the stock”
- “[A] plaintiff must affirmatively excuse 20 her failure to discover the fraud within three years after it took place, by establishing facts 21 showing that he was not negligent in failing to make the discovery sooner and that he had 22 no actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry”
- “The statute commences to run … after one has knowledge of facts sufficient to make 20 a reasonably prudent person suspicious of fraud, thus putting him on inquiry.”
- "[TJhis court has held if an action is brought more than three years after commission of the fraud, plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving that he did not make the discovery until within three years prior to the filing of his complaint”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SPENCE, J.
I concur in the reversal of the judgments upon the grounds stated but cannot subscribe to all that is said in the majority opinion. In my opinion, the judgments should be reversed upon the further grounds: (1) that the evidence, as a matter of law, was insufficient to establish ac *453 tionable fraud and (2) that plaintiff’s alleged cause of action, as a matter of law, was barred by the statute of limitations. I am of the view that the facts and the law relating to these further grounds for reversal were exhaustively and correctly discussed in the dissenting opinion written by Mr. Justice Knight at the time this cause was pending in the District Court of Appeal, to which dissenting opinion reference is hereby made. (Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co., (Cal.App.) 148 P.2d 41 , 59.)
Edmonds, J., concurred.