Dyment v. Nelson
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. ’ W. J. Mossholder, Mark P. Mossholder, and Rusk P. Moss-holder, for Appellant. E. H. Lamme, and E. I. Kendall, for Respondent Christine H. Nelson.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
This action was commenced by Dyment for the purpose of establishing his ownership of the yacht “Lurline” which had been purchased, he alleged, from Oliver N. Nelson, one of the defendants, the husband of the other defendant. The judgment was in favor of Christine H. Nelson, the court decreeing that the vessel was her separate property and that the pretended sale to the plaintiff by the husband of Christine H. Nelson was of no effect. From the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial the plaintiff appeals.
The court found that the defendants had been husband and wife since…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Title Insurance Etc. Co. v. IngersollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Eversdon v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Shaw v. BernalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Schuyler v. BroughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Flournoy v. FlournoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Gapsch v. GapschIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
- Hogevoll v. HogevollCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Millington v. MillingtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
- Moulton v. MoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Palen v. PalenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.