Nickel v. State
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, Charles M. Fickert, District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco, Robert A. Waring, Inheritance Tax Attorney, William A. Sullivan, Assistant Inheritance Tax Attorney, and Hartley F. Peart, for Respondent. Edward F. Treadwell, and Delger Trowbridge, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtWilbur, J.
This is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs from judgment against them on demurrer. As authorized by section 18b, Statutes of 1913, page 1080, they brought suit against the state to quiet title as against the claims of the state to a lien for an inheritance tax upon certain shares of stock transferred to them by a trust agreement dated April 17,1913, and recorded October 20, 1916. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were grantees or beneficiaries of a transfer made by Henry Miller to them of 119,839.75 shares of stock in the Miller and Lux Company, a corporation. That on the fourteenth…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re Estate of GurnseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- In Re Estate of FeltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Trippet v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Hunt v. WichtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Woodroof v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Potter v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- In Re Estate of MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- In Re Estate of MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Riley v. HavensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Johnson v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.