Tomblin

Tomblin v. Hill

Good Law
1929 Cal. LEXIS 657·206 Cal. 689·275 P. 941
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1929Docket No. L.A. 9288.California2,535 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Preston, J.

Plaintiff in- this action sued defendants Frank C. Hill and Cornelia Beauvais, seeking to have them declared trustees for her benefit of the legal title to a certain piece of real property situate in the city of Los Angeles. She alleged the relation of attorney and client between defendant Hill and herself respecting said property; also that with the intent of securing the title to said property for himself, he, through the agency of others, purchased a sheriff’s certificate theretofore issued at the execution sale of said property had upon a judgment against plaintiff and in favor of one Olive Pearl Phillips, defendant Hill being attorney for plaintiff in the legal proceedings leading to said judgment. She further alleged that with intent to defraud her and to acquire said property for himself, said defendant purchased various other judgments theretofore rendered against her, which were a lien against said property purchased; also a $12,000 mortgage held against said property by the Security Trust and Savings Bank.

Defendants answered with a general denial, alleging that neither they nor either of them held said property in trust for plaintiff nor had they acted in fraud of her…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.