Ferguson v. Schuenemann
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtShepard, J.
This is an action in which plaintiff seeks to establish her equitable interest in certain real and personal property, acquired during the time that she and defendant Schuenemann (who will hereinafter be referred to as defendant) were living together as husband and wife and had agreed to pool their interests in income and property.
After a nine-day trial and voluminous evidence and arguments of counsel, the court found in general substance that in October, 1948, plaintiff and defendant agreed to pool and share equally their income, expenses and property accumulations ; that said parties did so…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Koeberle v. HotchkissCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Wilson v. StearnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- California Employment Stabilization Commission v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Marvin v. MarvinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- Middelsteadt v. KarpeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Montoya v. McLeodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Cannon v. Florida Real Estate CommissionDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1969
- Richardson v. RobertsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.