Legal Opinion

Martin v. Freeman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 27, 1963No. Civ. 20945PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevine, J.

In this action to quiet title and for an accounting, the court rendered judgment for defendant solely upon the ground that the true party plaintiff, Charles N. Douglas, an attorney at law, had bought the chose in action which is the basis of the lawsuit, with intent to bring suit thereon, and that under the provisions of section 6129 of the Business and Professions Code, plaintiff is barred from obtaining judgment. The trial judge stated in a written opinion that had he been permitted to find on the merits, he would have found that defendant held the legal title, but held one half thereof in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. In Re TartarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Tuller v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Foreman v. GwirtzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Cain v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Muller v. MullerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Crocker Citizens National Bank v. KnappCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  3. In re DesignLine Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2017
  4. GEICO v. MAO-MSO Recovery IICourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2025

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

Powered by the Exa API