Hynes v. M.J. M.M. Consolidated
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Cullinan & Hickey, James F. Peck, Walter Shelton, Chas. C. Boynton, and Frank M. Hultman, for Appellant. Frank H. Short, Geo. E. Whitaker, Everts & Ewing, J. W. McKinley, Hunsaker & Britt, and Thomas Scott, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The object of the action of the plaintiff was to declare that certain of the defendants were trustees holding, as such, the title to section 36, township 12 north, range 24 west, in Kern County, for the use.and benefit of the heirs of Charles H. Gilman, deceased, for a conveyance thereof by or for said defendants to said heirs, and further that a certain judgment rendered against one S. Davis, under whom said heirs claim, in favor of the people of the state of California, on December 27, 1892, be set aside. The judgment referred to is the same judgment that was under consideration by this…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Lake v. BonyngeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Moran v. BonyngeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Lake v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- Moss v. MossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Secret Valley Land Co. v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Aikins v. KingsburyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915