Daugherty v. Daugherty
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court oí Amador County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The conveyance in question is fraudulent. (Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 972; Swartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118; Bull v. Bray, 89 Cal. 286; Lee v. Bigg, 87 Cal. 328; Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. Ill; 11 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court oí Amador County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion. The conveyance in question is fraudulent. (Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 972; Swartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118; Bull v. Bray, 89 Cal. 286; Lee v. Bigg, 87 Cal. 328; Peek v. Peek, 77 Cal. Ill; 11 Am. St. Rep. 244; Judson v. Lyford, 84 Cal. 506; Windhaus v. Bootz, 92 Cal. 621; Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. 448; Wood v. Hunt, 38 Barb. 302.)
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
George W. Daugherty, a married man, was the owner of a residence and a tract of land known as lots numbers 11, 12, and 13, in block number 8, in the town of Jackson, county of Amador, state of California, and was indebted in sundry sums of money amounting to say four hundred dollars, of which sums two hundred and five dollars was secured by a mortgage on the lots last mentioned.
On or about May 12, 1890, said George W. Daugherty filed a declaration of homestead upon his residence property, and conveyed to his mother, Mary Daugherty one of the respondents herein, by a voluntary deed…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bull v. BrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Windhaus v. BootzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Threlkel v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McFadden v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lefrooth v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Rossen v. VillanuevaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Allee v. ShayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Stevens v. MeyersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Dunlap v. HoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942