Hawkins v. Hawkins

50 Cal. 558
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1875
DocketNo. 3309
StatusPublished
Cited by54 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 558 (Hawkins v. Hawkins) 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
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1875).

Opinion

By the Court:

The demurrer was properly sustained. It does not appear from the complaint that any relation of especial trust or confidence existed between the parties to the contract, or that the means of knowledge as to the terms and, conditions of the writing were not equally open and accessible to both. The care and diligence of a prudent man in the transaction of his business would demand an examination of the instrument before signing, either by himself or by some one for him in whom he had a right to place confidence.

The fact that the plaintiff was illiterate, and could read manuscript only with difficulty, did not render this precaution less necessary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Fuentes v. Empire Nissan
California Supreme Court, 2026
Prostek v. Lincare Inc.
E.D. California, 2023
Iyere v. Wise Auto Group
California Court of Appeal, 2023
Behm v. Fireside Thrift Co.
272 Cal. App. 2d 15 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)
Casey v. Proctor
378 P.2d 579 (California Supreme Court, 1963)
McClure v. Cerati
194 P.2d 46 (California Court of Appeal, 1948)
Frankini v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n
55 P.2d 232 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Daily Telegram Co. v. Long Beach Press Publishing Co.
23 P.2d 833 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
California Trust Co. v. Cohn
7 P.2d 297 (California Supreme Court, 1932)
Gajanich v. Gregory
3 P.2d 389 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Fraters Glass & Paint Co. v. Southwestern Construction Co.
290 P. 45 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Brown v. Trimble
23 S.W.2d 162 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1929)
Greve v. Taft Realty Co.
281 P. 641 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Mazuran v. Stefanich
272 P. 772 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Ferro v. Los Angeles First National Trust & Savings Bank
264 P. 292 (California Court of Appeal, 1928)
Dale v. Dale
262 P. 339 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Natl. Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Peck
296 S.W. 338 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Russell v. Riley & Peterson
256 P. 557 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
King v. Globe Grain & Milling Co.
208 P. 166 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 Cal. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-hawkins-cal-1875.