Legal Opinion

Prey v. Stanley

California Supreme Court

Decided December 13, 1895No. S. F. No. 40PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Walter H. Levy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Britt, C.

Action to quiet title to a parcel of land in the city and county of San Francisco. Plaintiff is the wife of one Oscar Prey; defendant is her brother; she claims title through Mary J. Stanley, the mother of herself and defendant, in virtue of a deed of the premises executed to her by said Mary J. Stanley, February 29, 1892, in consideration of love and affection. Judgment was for plaintiff.

1. On November 29, 1892, plaintiff filed in the recorder’s office a declaration of homestead on the premises for the joint benefit of herself and her said husband; this action was begun June 15,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Mandlebaum v. McDonellMichigan Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Murray v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Coast Bank v. MinderhoutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Hart v. ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. GarrottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  4. Ripperdan v. WeldyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Callwood v. KeanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951

7 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