Legal Opinion

Meeks v. Kirby

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1873No. 2,711PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The action was ejectment. The plaintiff appealed. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Belcher, J.:

The plaintiff was nonsuited at the conclusion of his opening statement, and the correctness of that order is the only question presented upon this appeal. It appears that both parties claimed title to the premises in fee—the plaintiff, under a conveyance made in 1854 from the heirs of Harlan, who died seized thereof in 1850; and the defendants under conveyances made in 1856 by the-administrator of the estate of Harlan in pursuance of orders made by the Probate Court, and in virtue of an adverse holding for about twelve years. The estate was unsettled at the time of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Meeks v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  2. Kile v. TubbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lamme v. DodsonMontana Supreme Court · 1883
  2. McCrea v. HaraszthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Meeks v. VassaultU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1874
  4. In Re Dayton's EstateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
  5. Plass v. PlassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API