Legal Opinion

Cummins v. Cummins

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 31, 1935No. Civ. No. 5275; Civ. No. 5276PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PAULSEN, J., pro tem.

These actions, in which the parties are husband and wife, were tried upon the same evidence and were consolidated for the purposes of the appeals.

Before considering the cases separately or the several points involved therein, certain facts which relate to both cases should be stated.

The parties owned two houses and lots in Hollywood, California, the title to which was held under joint tenancy deeds, and one house and lot in Portland, Oregon, the title to which stood in the name of the husband. They had about $8,000 on deposit in a Texas bank in the husband’s name, and an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of CoverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Siberell v. SiberellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Delanoy v. DelanoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Tillaux v. TillauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Chadwick v. ChadwickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Socol v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Schindler v. SchindlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Watson v. PeytonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Lazzarevich v. LazzarevichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. King v. KingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API