Osmont v. All Persons, Etc.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco denying a motion for an order setting aside the default of all persons and vacating a judgment entered for the plaintiffs in a proceeding to establish title to land under the so-called McEnerney Act. James M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This action, brought under the McEnerney Act, was commenced in August, 1909. Plaintiffs pleaded their deraignment of title through and under the decree of distribution given in the estate of Solomon Heydenfeldt, deceased, by which decree the land involved in the action was distributed to one Mangels, by him deeded to Thomas M. Osmont, the husband of Augusta C. Osmont, and upon the death of Thomas M. Osmont, intestate, the vestiture of title in them as heirs. Trial was had, findings were signed on September 17, 1909, and filed on September 18, 1909, upon which last named day the judgment was…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Mitchell v. OvermanSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Brownell v. Superior Court of Yolo Cty.California Supreme Court · 1910
- Fox v. Hale & Norcross Silver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Gray v. LawlorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- People v. United Bonding InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Mather v. MatherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- People v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Buder v. FiskeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1949
- Edlund v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1930
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.