Legal Opinion

Westcott v. Nixon

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 8, 1933No. Docket No. 372PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

The plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy of the bankrupt estate of Eobert Curtis Kitehel, a bankrupt, began this action to quiet title to 100 tons of baled alfalfa hay, and also to recover certain alleged preference payments and also to quiet title to an order for approximately $100. In the first cause of action it is alleged that on the second day of January, 1930, Kitehel indorsed and delivered to Nixon, in payment of past indebtedness, an order in the sum of $308 drawn on the Globe Grain and Milling Company by Kitehel,- that Kitehel was bankrupt at the time and Nixon…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hassell v. BungeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Davis v. McFarlaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  3. In re McDonaldDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1910
  4. Sequeira v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. O'Brien v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Aggregates Associated, Inc. v. PackwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Cate v. Certainteed Products Corp.California Supreme Court · 1943
  3. International Canning Machinery, Ltd. v. Murrieta Hot Springs (In re Murrieta Hot Springs)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API