Legal Opinion

Bullis v. Staniford

California Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1918No. S. F. No. 7447. In BankPublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Edward C. Harrison, Maurice E. Harrison, Edgar K. Brown, and Trask & Brown, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Plaintiff, who is a judgment creditor of defendants, sued to annul and set aside a homestead which was alleged to have been declared fraudulently by defendant, Virginia Lee Staniford, wife of defendant, George F. Staniford, upon certain premises in the city of Fresno. Judgment was given in favor of defendants. From said judgment plaintiff appeals. • The most important question in the ease was whether or not, at the time of filing the declaration of homestead, Virginia Lee Staniford was, in the contemplation of the homestead law, actually residing with her husband and family on the premises.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Lubbock v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Maloney v. HeferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Luck v. LuckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Gambette v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Skinner v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Strangman v. DukeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. Greenlee v. GreenleeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Michelman v. FryeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  4. Ellsworth v. MarshallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. In re SterlingDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937

7 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