Rico v. Spence
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Third Judicial District. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Cope, J. and Norton, J. concurring.
The Court below appears to have treated this action as brought under the statute to quiet the title of the plaintiffs to a tract of land situated in Monterey County, and to have ordered its dismissal on the ground that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the premises at its commencement. Such possession of the plaintiffs was essential to maintain an action of this character. (Prac. Act, sec. 254.) But the defendants contend that the action was brought not merely to quiet the title of the plaintiffs, but also to establish and enforce a trust. The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Estrada v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by11 opinions
- Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Brusie v. GatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Lyle v. RollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Coolidge v. ForwardOregon Supreme Court · 1883
- Salmon v. SymondsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.