Pfister v. Dascey
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
—This action was brought by plaintiffs claiming as purchasers and owners of ca parcel of land, by virtue of a sale on execution issued on a judgment regularly recovered against defendant John Dascey, to set aside certain conveyances executed by said Dascey and by others claiming under him, as fraudulent and void against the plaintiffs as creditors and purchasers, and to recover possession of the parcel of land above mentioned.
The complaint was demurred to by defendants, John Dascey;, Teresa Dascey, John W. Smith, and John McCallum, on the following grounds: —•
“1. That the same does not state…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Oakland v. CarpentierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Wilson v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- More v. MassiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Jones v. CortesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bennett v. MinottOregon Supreme Court · 1896
- Giant Powder Co. v. San Diego Flume Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- Bulwer Consolidated Mining Co. v. Standard Consolidated Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
- Ferrea v. ChabotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Loretto Literary Society v. GarciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.