Silverston v. Mercantile Trust Co.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action is in partition. Appellant states that “there is practically no controversy as to the facts.” The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendant, Mary Gray Tobin, are the owners as tenants in common of certain personal property consisting of notes and bonds; that the Mercantile Trust Company of San Francisco claims some interest adversely to plaintiff, but that it is without right. The answer denies that plaintiff and said defendants are the owners or tenants in common or otherwise of the property and admits that the said Mercantile Trust Company claims an interest in the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Crew v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Burris v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Bliss v. SneathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Bingham v. KearneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Estate of KeetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Getty v. GettyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Nielsen v. EmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Suisun Lumber Co. v. Fairfield School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Servente v. MurrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.