Scholle v. Finnell
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Morrison, Dunne & Brobeck, and Edward Lynch, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
John Finnell was, in his lifetime, largely indebted to the plaintiff. He died in October, 1905, leaving an estate which was appraised at a value insignificant in comparison with his obligations. Plaintiff’s claim for the amount due him was presented, allowed by the administrator of Finnell’s estate, and approved by the court. The plaintiff sought to realize on his claim by instituting actions to set aside, as in fraud of creditors, transfers of property alleged to have been made by John Finnell during his lifetime. One such action was instituted in the superior court of Tehama County. In that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Goldner v. SpencerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Peiser v. GriffinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Finnell v. FinnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Scholle v. FinnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Lyden v. Spohn-Patrick Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by49 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Bastajian v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Huth v. KatzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Buckhantz v. R. G. Hamilton & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945
- People v. HillsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.