Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Rudolph

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 20, 1922No. Civ. No. 4200PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTyler, P. J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain real property. The complaint is in the usual form. It is alleged therein that defendant Rudolph is the duly appointed and acting treasurer of the city of San Jose, and that the defendant Elliott and Horne Company is a corporation; that both defendants assert an interest in, or lien upon, the land described in the complaint, adverse to the claim and ownership of plaintiff, and that such claim is asserted wholly without right.

The city treasurer filed a general denial. Defendant Elliott and Horne Company also denied ownership in plaintiff, and, as an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Hellman v. ShoultersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Faxon v. All PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Burns v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Carter v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re East Bay Etc. Water Bonds of 1925California Supreme Court · 1925
  2. District Bond Co. v. PollackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. East Bay Municipal Utility District v. HadsellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API