Phillips v. Isham
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPeek, J.
This controversy arises out of the admitted encroachment by defendants upon plaintiffs’ property. The judgment of the trial court required defendants to pay plaintiffs the sum of $250 within 20 days and that on compliance therewith defendants would be declared to be the owners of the land in question but in the event of default in such payment that plaintiffs have judgment quieting their title, that the encroachments be removed from their property and that defendants pay to them the sum of $1.00 as damages.
Plaintiffs’ sole contention upon appeal, which appears to be well founded, is that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Marcus v. BrodyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Morris v. GeorgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
3Cited by10 opinions
- Christensen v. TuckerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Brown Derby Hollywood Corp. v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Mallon v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Fretz v. BurkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Elsis v. EvansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.