Legal Opinion

Schoonover v. Birnbaum

California Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1907No. L.A. No. 1661PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The plaintiff is trustee of the estate of Mary E. Birnbaum, a bankrupt. Claiming, as such trustee, to own the undivided one half of certain premises, he brought this action for partition. The defendant appeals from an interlocutory decree directing a sale of the premises. The allegations of the complaint were all found by the court to be true. Taken alone, they were sufficient to justify the granting of the interlocutory decree, and the only question is whether the relief sought should have been withheld by reason of further findings in favor of affirmative allegations made by the answer. The…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Winslow v. GohransenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Himmelman v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Dolliver v. DolliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Heilbron v. FowLer Switch Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Schoonover v. BirnbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. W. R. Grace & Co. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. In Re the Estate of ShireyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Mohr v. North Rawhide Mining & Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Boomer v. Southern California Edison Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Carlin v. CarlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

2 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