Legal Opinion
Driscoll v. Driscoll
California Supreme Court
Decided June 13, 1904No. Sac. No. 1229PublishedCited by 31 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HARRISON, C.
In May, 1897, John Driscoll was a member of the partnership of Root, Neilson & Co., composed of H. P. Root, Alexander Neilson, and himself, and made and acknowledged before a notary public, and delivered to his daughter, Mary G. Driscoll, the defendant herein, the following instrument:—
“Know all men by these presents: That I, John Driscoll, of the city of Sacramento, county of Sacramento, and state of California, hereby grant to my daughter, Mary G. Driscoll, the following described real and personal property:
“The west sixty (60) feet of lot two (2), in the block bounded by L and…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lawrence v. McCalmontSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Wyche v. GreeneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Kyle v. ConnCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1802
- Banks' Adm'r. v. MarksberryCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1823
- Miller v. BrighamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Crocker v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Pinsky v. SloatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Sylvain v. PageMontana Supreme Court · 1929
- Young v. New Pedrara Onyx Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
- Burkett v. DotyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.