Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. Moir
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
—Ejectment. Judgment for plaintiff; appeal by defendant from judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.
The land in controversy is the west half of section 22, of township one (1) south, range seven (7) west, San Bernardino meridian.
The plaintiff claimed under a patent of the United States for this land issued to one Marsicano, bearing date March 20, 1886, and a deed from Marsica.no to it conveying this land, bearing date the 15th of December, 1886.
The documents above mentioned were introduced in evidence by plaintiff, and it then rested.
This land was listed to the state of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Doolan v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Hildebrand v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Sutton v. FassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Rowell v. PerkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Williams v. City of San Pedro Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- People ex rel. Lynch v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Klauber v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Edwards v. RolleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Donley v. Van HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.