Simonson v. Burr
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Waldo M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BELCHER, C.
The plaintiffs in this action at all the times named in the pleadings therein were husband and wife. On April 6, 1891, the real property involved in the action was conveyed by deed to the wife, Bengita Simonson. On December 3, 1892, the plaintiffs jointly executed, acknowledged, and filed for record a declaration of homestead upon the said property. The declaration stated that: “We, Espen Simonson and Bengita Simonson, hereby certify and declare that we are husband and wife, and that we do now, at the time of making this declaration, actually reside on the land and premises…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lubbock v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Fitzell v. LeakyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Heathman v. HolmesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Beaton v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Southwick v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- People v. LaparaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Yager v. YagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- San Pedro, L.A. & Salt Lake R.R. v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Matcha v. WinnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
- Standard Livestock Co. v. PentzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.