King v. Pauly
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Davis, Kemp & Post, and Patterson Sprigg, for Appellant. Stearns & Sweet, James E. Wadham, and Wadam & Pritchard, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] This is an action to quiet plaintiff's title to certain real property in the city of San Diego. Defendants had judgment and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's claim was that the property in question was the separate property of his intestate, Cornelia A. Chase, at the time of her death, January 23, 1896. Said Cornelia was at the time the property was acquired (November 12, 1868) the wife of Levi Chase, the executor of whose will is one of the defendants, and was…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hansen v. Union Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Matter of TraceyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- In re De LeonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1804
3Cited by33 opinions
- Faxon v. All PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Woodard v. Pacific Fruit & Produce Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1940
- Parsons v. Federal Realty Corp.Supreme Court of Florida · 1931
- Coombes v. GetzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.