Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mulcahey v. Dow

California Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1900No. S.F. No. 1719Published

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1DissentVan Dyke, J.

I dessent. The purpose of the proceeding is not to disturb this action of the probate court at all; that court had jurisdiction of the matter in question, and upon the testimony and showing before it the decree of distribution could not well have been different from the one entered. The question here is whether a party who has succeeded in obtaining a thing through fraud can be compelled to yield it to whom it properly belongs and who would not have been deprived of it excepting through such fraud. Our code lays down the general rule in such cases in the following language: “One who gains a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Moore v. CrawfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Lataillade v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Wickersham v. ComerfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Dunlap v. SteereCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Bergin v. HaightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

4 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