Legal Opinion

Woerner v. Woerner

California Supreme Court

Decided November 4, 1915No. S. F. No. 6166PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Louis P. Boardman, and Philip C. Boardman, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The object of this action, as disclosed by the complaint, is to correct a mutual mistake in an alleged written contract whereby Adolph Woerner agreed to convey a tract of land to Marie Woerner, and to enforce said contract, as reformed, against Gus Woerner, who, it is alleged, has succeeded to the title of Adolph Woerner, with knowledge of plaintiff’s rights. Adolph died after making the deed to Gus. The latter is also made a party as executor of the estate of Adolph, but his representative capacity is not a material fact in the case as finally settled by the findings.

The findings show that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Preston v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Edwards v. EstellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Swain v. BurnetteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Forrester v. FloresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  5. Trope v. KernsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Blanton v. Womancare, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Stewart v. Preston Pipeline Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
  3. Anderson v. StansburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Nicholson v. BarabCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Robinson v. HilesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

12 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