Legal Opinion

Harrington v. Goldsmith

California Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1902No. S.F. No. 2249PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

The plaintiff seeks herein a partition of a tract of land in the county of Santa Cruz, alleging in his complaint that he is the owner of an undivided two thirds thereof, and that the defendant is the owner of an undivided one third thereof. The defendant in his answer denied that either the plaintiff or himself was the owner of any part of the land, and asked that the action be dismissed. The court found in accordance with the claim of the plaintiff, and made an interlocutory decree accordingly. The defendant has appealed.

The patent from the state of California, which included the lands in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Rogers v. CadyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Hastings v. CunninghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Faekler v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bell v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
  2. Bank of Lemoore v. FulghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Payne Butler v. Providence Gas CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1910
  4. Elbert, Ltd. v. Federated Etc. PropertiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Broome v. BroomeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

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

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

Powered by the Exa API