Legal Opinion

Furlong v. Cooney

California Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1887No. 9674PublishedCited by 26 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

The controversy in this case is about a strip of land sixty-eight feet nine inches long and from four to thirteen inches wide. The strip is a part of fiftyvara lot No. 186, which is situated on the side of Telegraph Hill, in the city of San Francisco, and is bounded on the north by Union Street, and on the west by Montgomery Street. The plaintiffs claim title to the strip under an alcalde grant of the lot, and through sundry mesne conveyances from the grantee, and the defendants claim title to it under the statute of limitations. The case was tried before a jury, and the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Arrington v. LiscomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Cannon v. StockmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  3. Thompson v. PiocheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Thompson v. FeltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Haggin v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Rennert v. ShirkIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Nathan v. DierssenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Montgomery & Mullen Lumber Co. v. QuimbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Sullivan v. WellbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Frick v. SinonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

21 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