Legal Opinion

Julian v. Schwartz

California Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1934No. L. A. 14609PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

This action was brought to have the ownership of, and certain conflicting rights and interests in, certain oil wells and the proceeds of production therefrom judicially determined. At the commencement of the action, and pursuant to stipulation, receivers were appointed to take charge of and operate the wells and conserve the net proceeds. From time to time the receivers resigned and trustees were appointed, also pursuant to a stipulation, to operate the wells and impound the funds received. A “nominal” receiver was appointed to carry on litigation affecting funds due the prior receivership…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Havemeyer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Baughman v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Broder v. ConklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Hidden v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Julian v. SchwartzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. City of Riverside v. HorspoolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. The City of Riverside v. Horspool CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API