Legal Opinion

Huddleston v. Washington

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1902No. L.A. No. 1064PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Plaintiff’s action was to recover from defendant Harriet Washington one half of the taxes paid by plaintiff on certain real property in the city of Los Angeles. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying their motion for a new trial defendants appeal.

The court found the following facts: Defendants are husband and wife, and the husband is joined for that reason only; that plaintiff is the owner in fee of the south half of lot 3, block 7, Ord’s Addition, fronting sixty feet on Spring Street; defendant Harriet Washington owns a life estate in the north half of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brumagim v. TillinghastCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Mayor of Baltimore v. LeffermanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
  3. Johnson v. SquiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. McGee v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Moulton v. LouxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Tabata v. MuraneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. Sponable v. DareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. McMillan v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  5. First National Bank v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

10 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