Toner v. Meussdorffer
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. William E. Daingerfield, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court,
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This is an action for damages brought by the heirs of Mary E. Toner, deceased. The defendants are the executors of Charles Meussdorffer, deceased, and in their representative capacity leased certain premises to the plaintiff, Hugh Toner, who was the husband of Mary E. Toner, deceased, and is the father of the other plaintiffs. In the action it is sought to recover for the death of the said Mary E. Toner, which it is charged was caused by deceit and fraud practiced upon Hugh Toner by the defendants.
*464The action, if it could be maintained at all, is properly brought against defendants in their…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Stowe v. Fritzie Hotels, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1955
- De Motte v. ArkellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
- Ellis v. McNeeseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Rapaport v. ForerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Johnson v. HoldermanIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.