Legal Opinion

Pepin v. Stricklin

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 7, 1931No. Docket No. 7668PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal on the judgment-roll alone. Plaintiff and appellant sued to quiet title to two parcels of land. The court found that for a long time prior to June 27, 1923, plaintiff and her husband, the defendant Albert Pepin, had been living separate and apart; that on June 27, 1923, plaintiff entered into two separate contracts with the Bank of Italy to purchase the parcels of land in question; that all payments made by plaintiff upon said contracts were made from her separate earnings; that plaintiff caused said contracts to be issued in the name of herself and said…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Riley v. MartinelliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Tilden v. TildenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Calkins v. SteinbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Pacific Fruit Exchange v. SchropferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Rauer's Collection Co. v. HigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. Zeigler v. BonnellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Hammond v. McArthurCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Oberwise v. PoulosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Grothe v. Cortlandt Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1992

18 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