Beattie v. Crewdson
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and from an order denying a new trial. S. K. Dougherty, Judge The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Ejectment. The property consists of certain lots in Hewitt’s addition to the city of Santa Rosa. Trial hy the court without a jury. Defendant Crewdson claimed title to the lots in question, and hy way of cross-complaint asked to have his title quieted. Defendant Michaels answered that he is not and has not been in possession since June 1, 1897 (the complaint was filed December 7, 1897), and defendant Pol-' lini claims that he occupies the premises as tenant of defendant Crewdson. Judgment was given in favor of Crewdson that he is the owner and entitled to possession and quieting…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Eversdon v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Scheerer v. CuddyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Wilhoit v. LyonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by17 opinions
- Bell v. PleasantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Adams v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Osceola Land Co. v. Chicago Mill & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Whitney v. ShermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Lindley v. BlumbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.