Plass v. Plass

122 Cal. 3 ·

Supreme Court of California · Filed

Published · citable

Holding

The court held that a resulting trust was properly established for an undivided one-third interest in the "Haskell ranch" because the plaintiff furnished a specific, identifiable portion of its purchase price, but that a resulting trust could not be established for the "Goodrich ranch" because the plaintiff failed to prove the precise proportion of income from the first property, used to purchase the second, that belonged to him.

Source: cap_files. Verify against the official reporter before relying on this text.