Legal Opinion

Williams v. Coleman

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 29, 1924No. Docket No. 4809PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.

Defendants’ demurrers to plaintiff’s second amended and supplemental complaint were sustained, with leave to amend. Plaintiff declined to amend and thereafter judgment was entered in favor of defendants, from which judgment plaintiff has appealed.

The action was originally commenced against Robert L. Coleman and Frances E. Coleman, his wife. Subsequently Coleman died, and his wife, who was appointed executrix of his will, was, as such executrix, brought in as a party defendant.

The facts, as alleged in the second amended and supplemental complaint, are, in substance, as follows: On January 1,…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Watson v. SutroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. White v. SchaderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Kreling v. KrelingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Roberts v. FitzallenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Shiels v. NathanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Spalding v. SpaldingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
  2. Heinrich v. MageeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Epperson v. CappellinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Seid Pak Sing v. BarkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Essey v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

1 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