Bowden v. Pierce
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Department One.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
For the reasons given in the opinion rendered in Department One, order affirmed.
*460Thornton, J., expressed no opinion.
The following is the opinion of Department One above referred to, rendered on the 17th of June, 1887:—
Paterson, J.
— Plaintiff, who is an heir and devisee of A. H. Houston, deceased, commenced this action February 9, 1881, to have certain contracts of sale from the executrix to defendant Pierce declared fraudulent and void; to have defendant adjudged to be a trustee for the devisees as to all moneys realized under the sea-wall contracts so purchased by him, and to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pryor v. DowneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lamkin v. VierraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- In the Matter of the Estate of TorresSuperior Court of Guam · 2009