Hironymous v. Hiatt
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
HART. J.
This action was brought to obtain a decree adjudging void a certain promissory note executed by the plaintiff and still outstanding, as authorized in such a case by section 3412 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows: “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.”
The ward of the defendant guardian is the daughter of a son of the deceased husband of the plaintiff by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- In Re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of JamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1895
- BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Shaw v. CampIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Tracy v. AlvordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Wisler v. TombCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- McConnell v. Bible InstituteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Coon v. ShryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Duty v. Abex Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1989
- Gackstetter v. Market Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Turner v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.