Legal Opinion

Rutherford v. Peppa

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 24, 1921No. Civ. No. 3726PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.

This action was commenced against the defendant as administratrix of the estate of Elizabeth Taylor, deceased, to recover for care, medical services, and board and lodging furnished to the deceased by the plaintiff and his wife. The defendant, as administratrix, had refused to allow the claims filed by the plaintiff, amounting to about sixteen hundred dollars, and had filed an answer denying the indebtedness. The plaintiff offered testimony that deceased had been in the habit of spending week-ends at the home of the plaintiff and his wife for about twenty-nine years. During the last few years…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Zellner v. WassmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Walker v. HellerIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
  3. Cohn v. RumelyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Floody v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Manford v. CoatsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Jalof v. RobbinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Gould v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. State Ex Rel. Barclay Motors, Inc. v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Casner v. Daily News Co.California Supreme Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API