Legal Opinion

Myrtle Fountain v. Maxim

California Supreme Court

Decided July 21, 1930No. Docket No. Sac. 4237PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Myrtle Fountain, as administratrix1 of the estate of her deceased mother, brought this action against her father, the defendant and respondent herein, to quiet title to certain real property. Judgment was entered for the defendant, and plaintiff appeals. It is conceded that the record title to the land stands in the name of the defendant, but appellant claims that the land was the separate property of her mother. If the property was community property, in the absence of testamentary disposition appellant herein has no right, title or interest therein. (Civ. Code, see. 1401.) No such…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Title Ins. and Trust Co. v. IngersollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Freese v. Hibernia Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Title Insurance Etc. Co. v. IngersollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Simonton v. Los Angeles Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. In Re Estate of DrishausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Thomasset v. ThomassetCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Estate of NeilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Falk v. FalkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  4. Potter v. PotterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  5. Estate of SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

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