Legal Opinion
Shoemake v. Lane
California Supreme Court
Decided January 30, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 13429PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County denying the claim of appellants to undivided interests in certain real property.
The land was originally owned by B. B. Barnett. On March 14, 1890, he executed a deed of it to his son, F. Joseph Barnett. The instrument recites that “the said party of the first part . . . doth by these presents, give, grant, alien and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs, all those certain lots ...” Following is a description of the property and then the habendum, clause: “To have and to hold all and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Barnett v. BarnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Higgins v. WashburnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- County of Los Angeles v. WinansCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- De Vries v. De VriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Miller v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Estate of StanfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Kerr Land & Timber Co. v. EmmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Rhoda v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Estate of ClarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Murphy v. ConnollySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.