Legal Opinion

Van Calbergh v. Easton

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 13, 1917No. Civ. No. 2212PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJames, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet his title to a certain lot of land in the city of Los Angeles, alleging that he had for more than five years last past been the owner and in possession of and had paid the taxes upon the lot. It was asserted by the complaint that Alice A. Easton, a defendant, and certain other persons sued by fictitious names claimed an interest in the property adverse to the plaintiff. The complaint was filed on November 12, 1912. J. M. Moyer appeared and answered, claiming to be the successor in interest of the defendant Alice A. Easton and to be one of the persons…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Owsley v. MatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. State v. BrinkleyOregon Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Cummings v. LaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pereira Farms Corp. v. SimasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  2. Van Calbergh v. EastonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API