Legal Opinion

Hillwig v. Boyer

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 18, 1927No. Docket No. 5315PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

In this action judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for $3,864.92, and from this judgment defendant has appealed. He urges two points: 1. “The evidence does not establish that the deed was intended to be anything other than what on its face it purports to be”; 2. “The ex parte order made by the court sending the case to a referee for hearing was void and the judgment predicated upon the report of the referee is without support.” The complaint stated an action for money had and received, and the answer controverted the complaint. Without…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Couts v. WinstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Dean v. ShingleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  3. County of Sacramento v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Fontaine v. LacassieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
  5. Jones v. GardnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bastanchury v. Times-Mirror Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
  2. Young v. HoaglandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Knaugh v. BaenderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Jones v. DickermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Jensen v. FriedmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947

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