Legal Opinion
Smith v. Smith
California Supreme Court
Decided November 29, 1916No. S. F. No. 6883PublishedCited by 22 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment against her and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.
The action had reference to a certain tract of land in the county of Santa Clara. On the 19th of October, 1907, Uriah Smith owned this property in fee simple. On that day he made two deeds purporting to convey the title to his two sons, N. De Forest Smith and Grove C. Smith. These deeds were delivered to B. Grant Taylor, Esq., his attorney, with written instructions as follows:
“Saratoga, California, Oct. 19, 1907. “Mr. B. Grant Taylor,
‘ ‘ Attorney-at-law,
“Saratoga, California.
“Dear Sir:
“I…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Bury v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Cox v. SchnerrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Glover v. PattenSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Bias v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Paley v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Maynard v. HusteadSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1939
- Goddard v. FrazierCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1946
- Barney v. Rigby Loan & Investment Co.District Court, D. Idaho · 1972
- Bergsvik v. BergsvikOregon Supreme Court · 1955
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.