Legal Opinion

Porter v. Van Denburgh

California Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1940No. L. A. 16169PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

The plaintiff filed an action to impress a trust on certain personal property and for an accounting. Judgment was rendered in her favor to the effect that she was the owner of and entitled to have issued to her, as successor in interest of her husband, L. E. Porter, 60,939% shares of the capital stock of Tungsten Reef Mines Company. The defendant appealed.

The question for determination is whether the evidence supports the 'findings and the judgment. There is practically no conflict in the evidence. The controversy centers mainly on the interpretation of an instrument relied upon in part by…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Maguire v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  2. Bollinger v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Bewick v. MechamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Dabney v. PhilleoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Bernkrant v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Fish v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Adams v. HermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

11 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