Legal Opinion

Bixby v. Hotchkis

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 30, 1943No. Civ. 13963; Civ. 13964PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WOOD (W. J.), J.

Plaintiff is prosecuting appeals from two judgments in actions which he commenced on November 22, 1940, and which were consolidated for the purpose of trial. In each action defendant Katharine Bixby Hotehkis filed a cross-complaint and the appeals are from judgments rendered in her favor on the cross-complaints.

In one of the actions, which plaintiff entitled a claim and delivery action, he alleged that he is the owner and entitled to the possession of 10,703% shares of the capital stock of the Fred H. Bixby Company, of the value of $750,000; and that defendant Katharine Bixby…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gray v. Union Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Thomson v. ThomsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Swasey v. AdairCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. McColgan v. Magee, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1916

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Bixby v. California Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Ford v. Palisades Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Dern v. DernMontana Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Matter of Estate of Dern Family TrustMontana Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Graham v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1966

14 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