Legal Opinion

Hays v. Gloster

California Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1891No. 13790PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

This action was brought for the purpose of having a trust as to certain real and personal property declared and enforced, and for an accounting, reconveyance, etc. An answer was filed, in which the material averments of the complaint were denied. There was no demurrer to the complaint, — probably because it did not appear that the alleged promises and undertakings of defendant D. M. Gloster, upon which the cause of action is based, were not in writing. But at the trial, nearly all the evidence offered by plaintiff was excluded, upon the grounds that the alleged trust was void under the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Sandfoss v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Newman v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Broder v. ConklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Reid v. BurnsOhio Supreme Court · 1861

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  2. Lauricella v. LauricellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Nobles v. HuttonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
  4. Smith v. LombardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Mooney v. CyriacksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

16 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