Eakle v. Ingram
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Lake County. R. W. Crump, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, C.
The plaintiffs are the children and sole heirs of Mrs. E. A. Hammack, who died December 26, 1902, intestate. The plaintiff Eakle is the grantee and party of the sec* ond part, and the plaintiff Henry Hammack the party of the third part, in a deed of conveyance executed by Mrs. Ham-mack, as party of the first part, June 26, 1899, conveying to the grantee “and to her successors in trust” the land described in the complaint, “to have and to hold” the same, etc., “and to pay the rents, issues, and profits thereof to the said party of the first part during her natural life; and after the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Young v. BradleySupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Morffew v. S.F. & San Rafael R.R.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Slater v. HurlbutMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
3Cited by37 opinions
- Cowie v. StrohmeyerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1912
- Gray v. Union Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Fletcher v. Los Angeles Trust & Sav. BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Moxley v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
- Closset v. BurtchaellOregon Supreme Court · 1924
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.