Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

62 Cal. 155

Hanly v. Kelly

California Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1882

California Supreme Court · decided 1882-11-22

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. Hunt, J. Action to declare and enforce a trust as against the defendants James Kelly and Mary Kelly, his wife.

Relies on Dash v. Van Kleeck · Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Robinson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-11-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1956

5 state decisions

2018821890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court:

¶1The demurrer to the third amended complaint was properly sustained. The allegation with reference to the investment of the trust moneys, by defendant James Kelly, in the lot of land described, is: “That whilst said trust money has been so as aforesaid in the hands of the said James Kelly, he, the said James Kelly, has invested the same,” etc. For aught that appears, the investment was made with full knowledge on the part of plaintiff before the action was brought to recover the amount deposited, with interest, which resulted in the judgment at law, and facts are alleged showing that plaintiff had complete information with respect to the amount and condition of the trust fund.

¶2Under such circumstances, plaintiff must be held to have elected his remedy at law, and to be estopped from pursuing in equity the fund into the homestead. (See 2 Story’s Eq. Juris. 1097; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 497; S. C., 5 Am. Dec. 291; Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 141.)

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/62/cal/155 · .json · Public domain