Home/California Supreme Court/Hamilton v. Hubbard

Hamilton v. Hubbard

65 P. 321, 134 Cal. 603, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 832
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 29, 1901
DocketSac. No. 1749.
StatusPublished
Cited by31 cases

This text of 65 P. 321 (Hamilton v. Hubbard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hamilton v. Hubbard, 65 P. 321, 134 Cal. 603, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 832 (Cal. 1901).

Opinions

Upon a careful reconsideration of this case we are convinced that there is no substantial conflict in the evidence, and that there is nothing to support the findings of the superior court to the effect that the lot in controversy, upon its conveyance to Mrs. Hamilton, became community property. The Department opinion will therefore stand.

The point is made in the petition for rehearing that the plaintiff's demand is stale. This position cannot be sustained. The complaint, on its face, does not show a stale demand, and there is nothing in the findings or conclusions of the superior court to support such a defense.

The judgment and order appealed from are reversed.

The following is the opinion above referred to, which was rendered in Department Two, May 29, 1901: —

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Gonzalez
456 B.R. 429 (C.D. California, 2011)
Islas v. Islas
213 Cal. App. 2d 412 (California Court of Appeal, 1963)
Marans v. Newland
374 P.2d 721 (Montana Supreme Court, 1962)
Estate of Schechtman
328 P.2d 478 (California Court of Appeal, 1958)
Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, of San Francisco
200 F.2d 251 (Ninth Circuit, 1952)
Bowman v. Bowman
240 P.2d 487 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1952)
Oyama v. California
332 U.S. 633 (Supreme Court, 1947)
Altramano v. Swan
128 P.2d 353 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
McDonald v. Lambert
85 P.2d 78 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1938)
Jansen v. Jansen
15 P.2d 777 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Nordquist v. Malmberg
2 P.2d 334 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
Salveter v. Salveter
275 P. 801 (California Supreme Court, 1929)
Miller v. Miller
255 P. 1099 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Quinn v. Reilly
245 P. 1091 (California Supreme Court, 1926)
Bowman v. Sears
218 P. 489 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Clary v. Fleming
198 P. 546 (Montana Supreme Court, 1921)
Lezinsky v. Mason Malt Whiskey Distilling Co.
196 P. 884 (California Supreme Court, 1921)
Potter v. Smith
291 P. 1023 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Rossiter v. Schultz
185 P. 997 (California Court of Appeal, 1919)
Holmes v. Holmes
150 P. 793 (California Court of Appeal, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 P. 321, 134 Cal. 603, 1901 Cal. LEXIS 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-hubbard-cal-1901.