Legal Opinion

Winter v. McMillan

California Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1890No. 12340PublishedCited by 35 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

This action was brought against the defendant, McMillan, to quiet the title of the plaintiffs, Winter and Wright, to a lot of land in San Francisco. The defendant answered, denying that the plaintiffs were the owners of or had any interest in the land, and at the same time filed a cross-complaint which alleges, in substance, that plaintiffs never had any interest in the property, except the naked legal title, which was conveyed to them by Louis and Louise Helbing, on June 3, 1881, without consideration, and with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of said grantors; that G.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. O'Connor v. IrvineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Wilson v. MadisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Harrison v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Venable v. DutchSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
  5. Brodrib v. BrodribCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Mitau v. RoddanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Tanner v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Alpers v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Roylance v. DoelgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Washington State Sugar Co. v. GoodrichIdaho Supreme Court · 1915

30 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