Greenwalt v. Mueller
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order refusing a new trial. Waldo M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
—Action to have a certain conveyance of real property to defendant declared to be void, and for a decree adjudging the property to belong to the insolvent estate of defendant’s husband. The cause ivas tried by the court without a jury, and it found the following facts: That on December 6, 1893, defendant purchased with her own means lot 108 in Brook’s addition to the city of Los Angeles for the sum of five hundred dollars, “and as part of the consideration undertook and promised to pay off an encumbrance of two hundred and fifty dollars then resting on said lot”; that the deed when…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cook v. CockinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Saurderson v. BroadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Bernheim v. ChristalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Haskin v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hasenjeager v. VothCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Peterson v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Commercial National Bank v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Mix v. YoakumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Manning v. App Consolidated Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.