White v. Costigan
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. William T. Baggett, J. Q. White, Walter H. Linforth, and George E. Whitaker, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action to quiet title to certain land in the county of Mendocino. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff has appealed, upon the judgment roll, without any bill of exceptions. The following facts appear from the findings of the court: —
In an action for divorce pending in the superior court, wherein George E. White was plaintiff and the plaintiff herein was defendant, a receiver was appointed, “ to take the custody and charge of and care for the property of said George E. White, for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the right of said Frankie White, and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hervey v. KrostIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Abadie v. LoberoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Pearson v. PearsonIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by9 opinions
- North Dakota Horse & Cattle Co. v. SerumgardNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
- Dipple v. NevilleMontana Supreme Court · 1928
- Bristol v. HersheyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
- Evalina Gold Mining Co. v. Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Grant v. BibbSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.