Legal Opinion

Hayne v. Hermann

California Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1893No. 19099PublishedCited by 29 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los-Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

Action to obtain a judgment that certain property is held by the defendant in trust for the plaintiff, and for a conveyance thereof.

E. C. Hermann, the father of the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant, in his lifetime caused a certain tract of land in Los Angeles County, of which he was the owner, to be conveyed to the defendant, and also certain moneys and other personal property to be paid and delivered to her. The court finds “ that said money was paid to defendant, and note and deed delivered to' her, upon the express understanding and agreement that she would hold the same in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Alaniz v. CasenaveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Nordholt v. NordholtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Cooney v. GlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Lauricella v. LauricellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Steinberger v. SteinbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Bollinger v. BollingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Taylor v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

24 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