Alaniz v. Casenave
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, C.
This action is for an accounting and to compel the reconveyance of real estate.
The complaint charges that defendant Pierre is the husband of the other defendant, who is the niece and adopted daughter of plaintiff; that after their marriage, in 1870, defendant Pierre took charge of plaintiff’s business, and has ever since continued to manage and control the same as her agent; that in 1874 plaintiff sold some property, and placed the proceeds, about twenty-two thousand dollars, in the hands of said Pierre to *44manage for her; that with a portion of the money he purchased certain lots in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Feeney v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Broder v. ConklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Adams v. LambardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by29 opinions
- Cooney v. GlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Lauricella v. LauricellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Steinberger v. SteinbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Wallace v. RileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.