Legal Opinion

Heathman v. Holmes

California Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 1892No. 14692PublishedCited by 24 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County dissolving an injunction. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

Plaintiffs obtained a writ of injunction enjoining the sale under execution of certain premises claimed by them as a homestead. On motion of defendants, the injunction was dissolved; and from the order dissolving it, the plaintiffs appeal. The only question in the case is, whether or not the premises constitute the legal homestead of the appellants.

The evidence shows, substantially, these facts: In 1883, the appellant M. F. Heathman purchased the lot of land involved, situated in the residence part of the city of Los Angeles, “ for the purpose of erecting a dwelling-house thereon, and making…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Phelps v. RooneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Lubbock v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Ackley & Dana v. ChamberlainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Maloney v. HeferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Southwick v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Rosenblum v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Smith v. Guckenheimer & SonsSupreme Court of Florida · 1900
  3. McKay v. GesfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Johnson v. BraunerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Simonson v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

19 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