Legal Opinion

Broder v. Conklin

California Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 1888No. 12493PublishedCited by 31 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

This is an action brought by John Ker and certain of his creditors and their successors aterest to have a trust established and declared ist the defendant, A. B. Conklin, as to certain real and personal property, and for an accounting, etc. Other parties are made defendants, as claiming an interest in the said property, etc. The defendants, A. B. Conklin and his wife, Mollie Conklin, demurred to the second amended complaint upon the grounds that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the alleged cause of action was barred by several sections of the Code of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Sandfoss v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Millard v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Vassault v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  5. Brennan v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Feeney v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Cooney v. GlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Lauricella v. LauricellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Steinberger v. SteinbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Russell v. RammCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

26 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