Legal Opinion
Smith v. Worn
California Supreme Court
Decided February 4, 1892No. 13653PublishedCited by 39 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Marin County, and from an order denying a new trial. The diagram on the following page shows the situation of the property in question. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
On September 14, 1871, David Porter conveyed to Sidney V. Smith, the father of plaintiff, a tract of land described in the first paragraph of the complaint. The'deed contained this clause: —
“ Also the right of way to the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, at all times hereafter, over, upon, and through a road sixty-six feet wide, which shall be laid out by said party of the first part over the lands owned by him, and shall run westward from the Ross Landing road, and immediately south of, but adjacent to, the tract of land so sold and conveyed to said James Ross and the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Smyles v. . HastingsNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Sherman v. BuickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Maxwell v. McAteeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1848
- Baker v. FrickCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Randall v. ChaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Reichardt v. HoffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
- Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Laux v. FreedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Herzog v. GrossoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.