Murphy v. Hopcroft
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
A general demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and from the judgment which followed plaintiff appeals. The action is for rent eo nomine, and the complaint discloses the following facts: Bernard Murphy, under a deed of trust, was the trustee of the estate of John Murphy. The beneficiaries under the trust were the sons of John Murphy, one of whom is the plaintiff herein. In July, 1896, Bernard Murphy held, and for a long time prior thereto had held, the legal title of the land for the use of which rent is here sought. Bernard Murphy acquired the title by a deed absolute to him individually.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Warnock v. HarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Prewitt v. AshfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Morris v. . WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Ramirez v. MurrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- O'Conner v. CorbittCalifornia Supreme Court · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- United States v. 70.39 Acres of LandDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1958
- Buttner v. KasserCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- U-Tex Oil Co. v. PauleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
- Ward v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1931
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.