Spencer v. Houghton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
— This is an action against a surety on the bond of the guardian of plaintiff.
The facts are correctly stated in an opinion of Justice Myrick herein filed April 28, 1885, and we adopt that statement, which is as follows:—
*83While the plaintiff, Josephine M. Spencer, was a minor (then Josephine M. Richardson), W. Harney was the guardian of her person and estate. In 1870 he was discharged as such guardian, and H. M. Hastings was appointed in his stead; and after qualifying, Hastings received from Harney ten thousand dollars and upwards, property of the ward. Hastings’s bond was in the sum of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Hart v. SansomSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- United States v. WardwellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1828
- Lane v. State ex rel. Harmon'sIndiana Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. BusterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by17 opinions
- Cook v. CeasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Mabee v. McDonaldTexas Supreme Court · 1915
- Williams v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Michigan Trust Co. v. FerryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
- Reither v. MurdockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.