Hall v. Susskind
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a new trial. Lneien Shaw, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, C.
This case in a different phase was before the court on a former appeal. (Hall v. Susskind, 109 Cal. 203.) *561Plaintiff sues as assignee in insolvency of one L. M. Wagner, who, prior to her insolvency, was engaged in business as dealer in jewelry, diamonds, watches, silverware, etc., at the city of Los Angeles. In his complaint plaintiff charged that defendant conspired with said insolvent and her husband (one J. B. Wagner who was her managing agent)-' to secrete and conceal a portion of her estate, described as “consisting of diamonds, watches, and jewelry,” to prevent the same from…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Levy v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Bode v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Newman v. CordellNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Seligman v. ArmandoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Liodas v. SahadiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Airola v. GorhamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Light v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Pinney & Topliff v. Chrysler CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1959
- Cty. Bank of San Luis Obispo v. JackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.