Wolfsen v. Smyer
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Peck, Bunker & Cole, and Ostrander, Tuttle, Griffin & Shaffer, for Appellant. E. A. Williams, G. G. Graham, and Croop & Croop, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
The claim of appellant in this action is that Silas Bowman, now deceased, and himself, in 1890, while appellant was a minor, entered into a verbal agreement whereby plaintiff was to live with said Bowman during the lifetime of the latter as his son, and help and work and care for him ai? a son, and attend to his interests as such, and in consideration thereof said Bowman would at his death leave all his property to the plaintiff; that plaintiff faithfully performed all the conditions and terms of the agreement on his part to be performed as a dutiful, affectionate, and considerate son should…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Owens v. McNallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- McCabe v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Blanc v. ConnorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Flood v. TempletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Baumann v. KusianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Monarco v. Lo GrecoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- O'Brien v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Hiroshima v. Bank of ItalyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Brought v. HowardArizona Supreme Court · 1926
- Nelson v. SmithNevada Supreme Court · 1918
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.