Unit 3 Firac Case Brief
Ashley E. Parramore
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
PA 205
August 8, 2011
Donnelly V. Rees Case Brief.
Donnelly V. Rees
Case Name: Donnelly V. Rees, 141 Cal. 56 (1903)
Court: California Supreme Court
FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased, who was known to be a habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed.
ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor, or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction, where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction.
RULE: Section 2224 of the California civil Code (1) The defendant gained the land by fraud. (2) By undue influence, and are therefore or, rather each is an involuntary trustee of the thing gained. (3) The same result follows, because they gained the thing by the violation of a trust. Upon either of these principles, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless precluded as is contended by the appellants.
ANALYSIS: The court cited in the decisions of Civ. Code, sec. 2219 Pierce V. Robinson, 13 cal. 127 Kimball V. Tripp, 136 Cal. 634, 635 Knight V. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674 Davies V. Otty, 35 Beav. 213
CONCLUSION: It was not necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O’Brien the amount alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction or that the court should so adjudge under the findings which we have held to be sustained by the evidence. These matters cannot be regarded as being connected with the transaction
Guidici v. Guidici Case Brief
Guidici v Guidici
Case Name: Guidici V. Guidici 2 Cal.2d 497 1935
Court: California Supreme Court
FACTS: In this action
Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing
PA 205
August 8, 2011
Donnelly V. Rees Case Brief.
Donnelly V. Rees
Case Name: Donnelly V. Rees, 141 Cal. 56 (1903)
Court: California Supreme Court
FACTS: An action may be maintained by the sole heir of a deceased person to set aside a deed procured from the deceased without consideration by the fraudulent practices of the defendants and their undue influence over the deceased, who was known to be a habitual drunkard for more than five years before the execution of the deed.
ISSUE: The plaintiff was not required to make any payments on account of an alleged bill against the grantor, or for moneys alleged to have been advanced to him subsequently to the alleged transaction, where these matters cannot be regarded as connected with the transaction.
RULE: Section 2224 of the California civil Code (1) The defendant gained the land by fraud. (2) By undue influence, and are therefore or, rather each is an involuntary trustee of the thing gained. (3) The same result follows, because they gained the thing by the violation of a trust. Upon either of these principles, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless precluded as is contended by the appellants.
ANALYSIS: The court cited in the decisions of Civ. Code, sec. 2219 Pierce V. Robinson, 13 cal. 127 Kimball V. Tripp, 136 Cal. 634, 635 Knight V. Tripp, 121 Cal. 674 Davies V. Otty, 35 Beav. 213
CONCLUSION: It was not necessary that the plaintiff should pay to the defendants the amount of their alleged bill, or to O’Brien the amount alleged to have been advanced to Kean subsequently to the transaction or that the court should so adjudge under the findings which we have held to be sustained by the evidence. These matters cannot be regarded as being connected with the transaction
Guidici v. Guidici Case Brief
Guidici v Guidici
Case Name: Guidici V. Guidici 2 Cal.2d 497 1935
Court: California Supreme Court
FACTS: In this action