Hanly v. Kelly

California Supreme Court

Hanly v. Kelly

62 Cal. 155, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 712

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1882

DocketNo. 7,324

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 62 Cal. 155 (Hanly v. Kelly) 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

Hanly v. Kelly, 62 Cal. 155, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 712 (Cal. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court:

The demurrer to the third amended complaint was properly sustained. The allegation with reference to the investment of the trust moneys, by defendant James Kelly, in the lot of land described, is: “That whilst said trust money has been so as aforesaid in the hands of the said James Kelly, he, the said James Kelly, has invested the same,” etc. For aught that appears, the investment was made with full knowledge on the part of plaintiff before the action was brought to recover the amount deposited, with interest, which resulted in the judgment at law, and facts are alleged showing that plaintiff had complete information with respect to the amount and condition of the trust fund.

Under such circumstances, plaintiff must be held to have elected his remedy at law, and to be estopped from pursuing in equity the fund into the homestead. (See 2 Story’s Eq. Juris. 1097; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 497; S. C., 5 Am. Dec. 291; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 141.)

Judgment affirmed.

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

The Court:

The demurrer to the third amended complaint was properly sustained. The allegation with reference to the investment of the trust moneys, by defendant James Kelly, in the lot of land described, is: “That whilst said trust money has been so as aforesaid in the hands of the said James Kelly, he, the said James Kelly, has invested the same,” etc. For aught that appears, the investment was made with full knowledge on the part of plaintiff before the action was brought to recover the amount deposited, with interest, which resulted in the judgment at law, and facts are alleged showing that plaintiff had complete information with respect to the amount and condition of the trust fund.

Under such circumstances, plaintiff must be held to have elected his remedy at law, and to be estopped from pursuing in equity the fund into the homestead. (See 2 Story’s Eq. Juris. 1097; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 497; S. C., 5 Am. Dec. 291; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 141.)

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Cal. 155, 1882 Cal. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanly-v-kelly-cal-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack