Legal Opinion

Hanna v. De Garmo

California Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1903No. L.A. No. 1111PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff, a judgment creditor of defendant G. S. De Garmo, to subject to plaintiff’s claim property alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by said defendant to his wife, defendant Mamie De Garmo, and by him and his said wife to his brother, defendant W. I. De 'Garmo. The defendant Southern California Savings Bank, it was alleged in the complaint, claimed some interest in the property. The defendants having answered, a trial was had, and judgment was finally entered in favor of plaintiff as against G. S. De Garmo for $1,754, and interest, As to defendants Mamie…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Warner v. DarrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Craig v. Hesperia Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Malone v. BeardsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Flashner v. WaldronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Kennedy & Shaw Lumber Co. v. DusenberyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Weisser v. Southern Pacific Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Associated Oil Co. v. MullinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Brush v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. County of Yolo v. NolanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API