Legal Opinion

Blair v. Hazzard

California Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1910No. L.A. No. 2147PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This is an action to quiet title. In 1873 S. S. Clark died testate, leaving real estate situated in the county of San Diego. His will was originally admitted to probate in Hamilton County, Ohio, and subsequently ancillary letters of administration with the will annexed issued from the probate court of San Diego County to Henry Pearce as sole executor. Henry Pearce continued so to act as the executor until his death in 1888. The land here in controversy was a part of the property of Clark’s estate and by his will was devised to Henry Pearce, Christopher Cockrill, and Mary Clark as co-trustees…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Estate of HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Goad v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Martinovich v. MarsicanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Thornagel v. PforrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Fowler v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Johns v. ScobieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Phelps v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Hart v. TaberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Marsh v. EdelsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Estate of MacMillanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954

13 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