Legal Opinion

Ord v. Bartlett

California Supreme Court

Decided March 12, 1890No. 12419PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

— On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1877, William M. Ord executed to the plaintiff (then Mrs. Anne E. Williams) his promissory note for seven hundred dollars, and a mortgage to secure payment of the same. Subsequently the plaintiff became the wife of Ord, and there was born to them a child named Anne Victoria Ord. On the 26th of April, 1882, Ord died intestate, leaving him surviving the plaintiff, his widow, and the child, Anne Victoria, as his only heirs at law. Administration on the estate of the decedent was taken out, and S. A. Bartlett was duly appointed the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. City of San Francisco v. LawtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. McComb v. SpanglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Beronio v. Ventura County Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Hoppe v. HoppeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Cody v. BeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

11 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