Legal Opinion

Fleischmann v. Lotito

California Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1936No. L. A. 15599PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in an action to set aside as fraudulent certain transfers of property. The appeal is taken on the judgment roll alone and the only question raised is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

The complaint alleged the recovery of a judgment in the Los Angeles Municipal Court on a debt owed the plaintiffs by the defendants Frank and Mike A. Lotito; that execution was issued and returned wholly unsatisfied; that, after the contracting of the debt, real property was conveyed by Mike Lotito to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sewell v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  2. Adams v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. People v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. McHugh v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  2. Estate of EdwardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  3. Caviglia v. JarvisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Benirschke v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  5. Courtell v. McEachenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

1 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