Mason v. Mason

California Supreme Court

Mason v. Mason

190 Cal. 439

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 20, 1923

DocketL. A. No. 7341

StatusPublished

This text of 190 Cal. 439 (Mason v. Mason) 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

Mason v. Mason, 190 Cal. 439 (Cal. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, C. J.

Plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife at the time the plaintiff executed a deed to the defendant on May 22, 1920. They were divorced June 30, 1920. Plaintiff brings this action to set aside the deed on the ground that it was procured by duress. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appealed claiming that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment. The evidence is conflicting and for that reason the appeal is without merit. [1] It is apparent from an inspection of the plaintiff’s brief that the appeal was not taken in good faith and was taken for delay only. The defendant should be allowed damages for frivolous appeal.

Judgment affirmed with $250 damages to be entered as costs in the trial court.

Waste, J., Myers, J., Lennon, J., Seawell, J., Lawlor, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

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

WILBUR, C. J.

Plaintiff and defendant were husband and wife at the time the plaintiff executed a deed to the defendant on May 22, 1920. They were divorced June 30, 1920. Plaintiff brings this action to set aside the deed on the ground that it was procured by duress. Judgment having been rendered in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appealed claiming that the evidence is insufficient to justify the judgment. The evidence is conflicting and for that reason the appeal is without merit. [1] It is apparent from an inspection of the plaintiff’s brief that the appeal was not taken in good faith and was taken for delay only. The defendant should be allowed damages for frivolous appeal.

Judgment affirmed with $250 damages to be entered as costs in the trial court.

Waste, J., Myers, J., Lennon, J., Seawell, J., Lawlor, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Cal. 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-mason-cal-1923.