Legal Opinion

Hough v. Wright

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 1932No. Docket No. 8546PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

Plaintiffs brought this action to set aside a deed upon the grounds of undue influence, fraud and nondelivery ; also to quiet title to an undivided two-thirds interest in the property described in the deed. In her answer defendant denied specifically the allegations of the complaint, including those relating to plaintiffs’ claim of ownership in the property, and in this behalf alleged affirmatively that she was the owner in fee of the whole of said real property. The prayer of the answer was that plaintiffs take nothing by their action; that by its decree the court declare defendant to be the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Larkin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Islais & Salinas Water Co. v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Brooks v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. Bay Land & Terminal Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  5. Bay Land Terminal v. Superior Court of San MateoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. District Bond Co. v. PollackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. H. & J. Mabury Co. v. BryantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Aten v. AtenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Furnivall v. GrovesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Flathead Lumber Corp. v. EverettMontana Supreme Court · 1953

2 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