Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Gries

California Supreme Court

Decided March 20, 1895No. 18387PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

This action was originally brought by H. S. Dixon, to foreclose a mortgage [made by Henry Gries. The other defendants were subsequent grantees of the mortgaged premises. After the commencement of the action the plaintiff, H. S. Dixon, became insane, and J. R. Dixon was appointed the guardian of his person and estate, and, upon motion, the court made the following order: “It is ordered that J. R. Dixon, as *507guardian of the person and estate of H. S. Dixon, plaintiff herein, be and he is hereby substituted as plaintiff herein, in the name, place, and stead of H. S. Dixon.”

Thereupon a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Wilson v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Karr v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. O'Shea v. WilkinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Justice v. OttCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Klopstock v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Friendly Village Community Ass'n v. Silva & Hill Construction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1973
  3. MacLeod v. StelleIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  4. In Re Marriage of HiggasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Gottesman v. SimonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

13 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