Ripling v. Superior Court
112 Cal. App. 2d 399 ·
California Court of Appeal · Filed
Published · citable
Cited by 1
Holding
The court held that petitioners were entitled to a jury trial because the action’s gist—a claim for immediate payment of money held under an express oral trust—was historically triable at law through actions like debt or assumpsit, not exclusively in equity.
Cited by (1)
- TED E. VAN DE KAMP et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant and Appellant (1988) 204 Cal. App. 3d 819