Legal Opinion

Pendola v. Ramm

California Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1903No. Sac. No. 1038PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

Suit to quiet the plaintiff’s title to the land described in the complaint, and an irrigating canal and water right alleged to be appurtenant thereto. The appeal is from an order denying the defendants’ motion for new trial.

The court finds that the plaintiff is, and that for more than twenty years he and his predecessors have been, the owners of the land described in the complaint, and also of the canal and water right, which, it is found, are, and during the period mentioned have been, appurtenant to the land. There is no dispute as to plaintiff’s title to the land, but it is…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bledsoe v. DecrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Standard Quicksilver Co. v. HabishawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Russell v. IrishIdaho Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Oliver v. BurnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. A. Hamburger & Sons, Inc. v. LemboeckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Murphy v. MageeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API