Legal Opinion

Sanders v. Russell

California Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1890No. 13745PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

Judgment went for defendant on demurrer to the complaint. The only question on this appeal is, whether the complaint states facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the action. James and Mary *120W. Lansing were husband and wife. The premises described in the complaint were their community property, duly dedicated as a homestead. James Lansing died, when the premises' became the sole property of Mary W. Lansing by operation of law (Civ. Code, sec. 1265), and was protected as such to the survivor in the same manner as before it had been protected to the community by its homestead…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bagley v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Lubbock v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Tyrrell v. BaldwinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Camp v. GriderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Isaac v. SwiftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Collins v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. In Re the Estate of FathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Union Oil Co. v. Norton-Morgan Commercial Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Dickey v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Lean v. GivensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

19 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