Legal Opinion
Baillarge v. Clark
California Supreme Court
Decided December 24, 1904No. L.A. No. 1322PublishedCited by 6 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of the defendant upon the judgment-roll. The action is to quiet title to a strip of land described as lots num hers 55 and 56 in block Q of the Santa Monica Commercial Company tract, in the town of Santa Monica.
The court below found that the plaintiff and Maurice Bail-large were husband and wife at the time the said Santa Monica Commercial Company conveyed the premises in dispute to the plaintiff as her separate estate, in 1893.
On August 7, 1897, the plaintiff and her husband went before a notary public in Santa Monica to draw their wills,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Quick v. MilliganIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Beardsley v. ClemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Alexander v. WelckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
3Cited by6 opinions
- Macomber v. KinneySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
- Crittenden v. McCloudCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Hollywood State Bank v. WildeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Miller v. SeversSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Jefferson v. TomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.