Graner v. Hogsett
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
BARTLETT, J. pro tem.
In the first cause of action set forth in the amended complaint, it is alleged that within three years last passed defendants “wilfully, wrongfully and illegally converted to their own use,” certain personal property; together with a demand for the return, and damages in the sum of $20,000 by reason of such conversion. The second cause of action alleged defendants wilfully, wrongfully and illegally converted to their own use certain real estate in Yuma County, Arizona; that plaintiffs received no consideration for the deed and that the property was of the value of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pollak v. StauntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Monk v. EhretCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Los Angeles Drug Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Vuich v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Munger v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Odone v. MarzocchiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- Richard v. RichardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Reynolds v. LermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Utemark v. SamuelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.