Walker v. Felt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order dismissing the action, and from an order refusing to vacate the order of dismissal, in the Third District Court, City and County of San Francisco, (McKee, J.) and from an order refusing to vacate the order of dismissal, and a judgment for defendants, in the Twenty-third District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Thornton, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Sharpstein, J.:
In 1871, the plaintiff and his attorney united in a conveyance of all the property involved in this action, as appears from deeds recorded at that time. Since that time their successors in interest, through their attorneys, have taken charge of the *387plaintiff’s side of the case, without a change of the title of the cause or of the attorney of record.' It was known, however, by the defendants’ attorneys for some years prior to 1877, as appears front the affidavit of one of them, that other attorneys than the attorney of record were representing other parties…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Crescent Canal Co. v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Casey v. Overhead Door Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Sykes v. BeckNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903
- King v. MillerOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Rodgers v. PittU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1899
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.