Legal Opinion

Mattern v. Canavan

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 10, 1906No. Civ. No. 193PublishedCited by 4 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. N. P. Conrey, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGray, P. J.

In this action the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendants decreeing that defendants held certain stocks in a mining corporation in trust for the plaintiff Harriet 0. Mattern, and that said stock be assigned and deliver to said plaintiff. The defendants appeal from said judgment and from an order denying them a new trial.

The only points urged for reversal are, (1) that a suit to enforce a trust was not the proper remedy in the ease, and (2) that the finding of the court that the defendant J. H. Canavan was acting as the agent of Mrs. Mattern when he obtained an option on the Montana…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. South San Bernardino Land & Improvement Co. v. San Bernardino National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Johnston v. LittleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lomita Land and Water Co. v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Hagge v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Thompson v. PriceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Schwab v. WageleySupreme Court of Colorado · 1926

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API