Springer

Springer v. Springer

Good Law
1901 Cal. LEXIS 1264·6 Cal. Unrep. 662·64 P. 470
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 21, 1901L. A. No. 756California1,560 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action to have certain deeds declared void and canceled, and for the reconveyance of the property to plaintiff. Defendants had judgment, from which and from an order denying her motion for new trial plaintiff appeals.

1. Plaintiff contends that the evidence does not support the finding that she was of sound mind when she executed the deed sought to he set aside, and that she knew that she was making a deed when she executed it. Plaintiff is an elderly widow, and is the mother of defendant Andrew J. Springer and of Edward Springer. Defendant Rosa Springer is the wife of Andrew. The court found that on May 11, 1895, and for some time prior thereto, plaintiff was the record owner of lot 22 of the Aurora tract, in the city of Los Angeles, but that her son Andrew had an equitable interest therein; that, at the time the lot was purchased, her two sons, Andrew and Edward, purchased said lot 22, and also lot 31 in the same tract, but the title to lot 22 was taken in plaintiff’s name and the title to lot 31 was taken in Edward’s name; that the purchase price was contributed by each of said plaintiff’s sons and by plaintiff, and thereafter and prior to May 11, 1895, plaintiff and her said…

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.