Legal Opinion

Mead v. Mead

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 26, 1919No. Civ. No. 1974PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The matter in controversy is set out substantially in appellant’s brief, as follows:

“Respondent and appellant are father arid son respectively. By his bill of complaint respondent seeks a reconveyance of certain real property deeded by him to his son in the' year 1911 when respondent was of the age of seventy-six years. The complaint which was filed during the fall of 1916, . . . sets forth in substance that for several years prior to the date of the execution of the deed in question respondent was the owner of real property therein described, that he is of advanced age, is ignorant of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Cox v. SchnerrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Nobles v. HuttonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Odell v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Soberanes v. SoberanesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Herbert v. LankershimCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Steinberger v. SteinbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Laherty v. ConnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Chamberlain v. Ventura County Civil Service Com.California Court of Appeal · 1977
  5. Noll v. BaidaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

14 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