Legal Opinion

Rogers v. King

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an agreed case for submission of a controversy without action, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover 15,000 as the purchase price of a lot of land. By the contract of sale the defendant was to take the land at that price, provided the title was good.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Twelfth Judicial District. This was an agreed case for submission of a controversy without action, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover 15,000 as the purchase price of a lot of land. By the contract of sale the defendant was to take the land at that price, provided the title was good. The plaintiff’s title to the land was derived through the will of one Romain DeBoom, and the only question raised as to its validity was whether the will was properly and legally admitted to Probate. The agreed ease states that the will was made in Belgium—that an authenticated copy of it was…

1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.

The agreed case states that Cornelius DeBoom (the executor named in the will) filed in the Probate Court a petition for the probate of the will of Romain DeBoom, and filed therein an *73authenticated copy of said will, and that the petition stated all the necessary facts and Avas sworn to, and that due and legal notice was published. It is also shoAvn that a judgment was entered admitting the Avill to probate, and that the will Avas thereupon duly recorded.

If, as is agreed, the petition stated ah the necessary facts, then upon its presentation with a copy of the will, and the publication of due…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Irwin v. ScriberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Board of Railroad Commissioners v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Stevens v. TorreganoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. People ex rel. Badger v. LœwenthalIllinois Supreme Court · 1879
  4. O'Donnell v. GlennMontana Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Booraem v. North Hudson County Railway Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1888

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

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

Powered by the Exa API