Wilson v. Wilson
California Court of Appeal
1DissentSalsman, J.
I dissent.
The plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to pass the test of a general demurrer. We must here assume that all of the pleaded facts are true. (Jensen v. City of Modesto, 89 Cal.App.2d 835 [202 P.2d 332]; Abroms v. New York Life Ins. Co., 53 Cal.App.2d 764 [128 P.2d 391].) The complaint shows the creation of the trust; it alleges that the trustor intended only the natural born children of the life beneficiary to receive the trust *548property on distribution, to the exclusion of all other persons; that plaintiff is the only natural child of Olga Wilson, the life beneficiary; that in…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- The Edward Barron Estate Co. v. the Woodruff Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Rutherford v. Rideout BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Lataillade v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.