Legal Opinion

Bloom v. Bloom

California Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1929No. Docket No. S.F. 12759PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the usual form to quiet his title to three parcels of land in the county of Santa Cruz. The defendant answered, denying absolute title in the plaintiff, and alleged that the plaintiff’s interest was founded upon a deed conveying to him the title to the three parcels of land described in the complaint and two other parcels described in the answer, which deed, although absolute in form, was alleged to be in fact a conveyance of the title to the plaintiff upon the trusts resulting from an agreement of the parties and evidenced by a letter exchanged between them…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Newcomb v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Warden v. NahasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Richardson v. MichelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Booth v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Brown v. ButtsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949

4 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