Hanscome-James-Winship v. Ainger
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
This is an action by the plaintiff, as a judgment creditor of the defendant D. N. Ainger, to secure a decree setting aside a deed from the said D. N. Ainger to his wife, Mary Ainger, on the ground that said conveyance was fraudulent as to the plaintiff.
Judgment passed for the plaintiff and the defendants appeal therefrom.
In their brief counsel for the plaintiff state that “the facts of the case are substantially as set forth in appellants’ brief.” In view of this statement, in setting out the facts herein we will appropriate in part the statement thereof in the opening brief of the appellants:
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Judson v. LyfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Atkinson v. Western Development SyndicateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- McKey v. CochranIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
- Benson v. HarrimanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Ross v. WellmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Fross v. WottonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Walters v. CalderonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Allee v. ShayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Ehret v. IchiokaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Vogel v. SheridanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.