McDonald v. Lambert
New Mexico Supreme Court
1DissentSadler, Justice
I disagree with the prevailing opinion almost in every conclusion it announces. This is aside from the objection that most of them are premature. The majority say, “The conversations were too indefinite to constitute a contract that would deprive appellee of his separate property;” and “we find no agreement to give appellant an interest in the homestead entry.”- The trial court whose' function it is to resolve the facts did not so find, deeming the matter immaterial. It expressly disclaimed any intention of so doing by assuming the very fact in issue, the making of the contract. It proceeded…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Perkins v. Sunset Tel. and Tel. Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Kellett v. TriceTexas Supreme Court · 1902
- Union Oil Associates v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Estate of McCauleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Vieux v. VieuxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.