Pinheiro v. Bettencourt
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County, and from an order refusing a new trial. George E. Chureh, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Action to quiet title. In his amended complaint plaintiff alleges ownership and possession of the E. ½ of the E. ½ of the N. E. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 11, township 16 south, range 22 east, M. D. B. & M., “being ten acres of land more or less, and more particularly described and bounded as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said section eleven and running westerly along the north line of said section a distance of three hundred and twenty-six feet, thence southerly and parallel with the east line of said section a distance of thirteen hundred and twenty- two feet, thence…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Clarke v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Castro v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Garvey v. LashellsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Franz v. MendoncaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Abbott v. PondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Barlow v. FrinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Conaway v. ToogoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- McMorris v. PaganoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Williams v. RushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Muzio v. EricksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.