Legal Opinion

Palmer v. Lantz

California Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1932No. Docket No. L.A. 11464PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Defendant Thomas A. Davis appeals from a default judgment by which a deed to two lots in the city of Los Angeles from plaintiff, Minnie M. Palmer, to said defendant Davis was adjudged null and void and ordered canceled on the ground that it had been procured by false and fraudulent representations made by Charles Lantz, as attorney-in-fact for Davis, and from an order denying his motion to set aside the default upon which said judgment was based. Said motion was made under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Service was had upon Davis by publication of summons and mailing a copy…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lilly-Brackett Co. v. SonnemannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Gray v. LawlorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Boland v. All Persons Etc.California Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Daniels v. ColkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Batchelor v. FinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Hiltbrand v. HiltbrandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Campbell v. GasperDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1984
  4. Pierson v. FischerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Gardner v. GardnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

6 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