Percival v. Jack
California Court of Appeal
The ease of Moss v. Jacks, to which reference is made in the opinion herein for the controlling facts, was ordered transferred to the supreme court on October 3, 1906, and the judgment was affirmed in that court, on May 9, 1907, and is reported in 151 Cal. 000 [90 Pac. 552], where the controlling facts are fully stated. Further facts are stated in the opinion in the present ease.
1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.
The controlling facts in the case at bar are identical with the facts in the case of Moss v. Jack, this day decided [90 Pac. 552], Here, as there, one of the devisees of the estate of "William S. Moss, deceased, is seeking to have the assignment and deed, so fraudulently mentioned in the opinion of Moss v. Jack, declared fraudulent and void, to compel an accounting and annul certain decrees settling the accounts of defendant as executor of the estate of William S. Moss, deceased.
The only essential difference between the two cases is that here the plaintiff is seeking to recover the sum of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- McCabe v. HealyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Hayden v. CollinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Costa v. SilvaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Buhman v. Nickels & Brown Bros.California Court of Appeal · 1905
- Moss v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907