Legal Opinion

Hotaling v. Hotaling

California Supreme Court

Decided January 5, 1922No. S. F. No. 9461PublishedCited by 26 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John Hunt, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloane, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, Lavinia J. Hotaling, to declare a trust in her favor and have restored to her 2,499 shares of the capital stock of the Hotaling Estate Company, a corporation, which stock at the time suit was begun stood on the books of the corporation in the name of the defendant, Richard M. Hotaling.

The fact is undisputed that these shares of stock, with one additional share, had originally been issued to and belonged to the plaintiff as her interest in a family estate represented by the above-named corporation. The remaining stock was held in blocks of two thousand…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. DoyellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  2. People v. RodleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Cal. Elec. Light Co. v. Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co.California Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hotaling v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Hansen v. Bear Film Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Oil Workers International Union v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  4. In Re Estate of HutchisonOhio Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Brown v. Canadian Indus. Alcohol Co.California Supreme Court · 1930

21 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