Legal Opinion

Kirby v. Potter

California Supreme Court

Decided March 26, 1903No. Sac. No. 1092PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, C.

Appeal by defendants from judgment for plaintiffs. Action to quiet title. The plaintiffs allege, and the appellants seem to concede the truth of the allegation, that said plaintiffs are the owners of the north half of the northwest quarter, lot 1 of the southwest quarter of northwest quarter, lot 2 of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter, all in section 10, and lot-1 of the northeast quarter of section 9, all in township 18 north, range 3 east, M. D. M., according to the government survey thereof. This land lies adjacent to the Feather River. That stream curves around the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Railroad Co. v. SchurmeirSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
  2. Freeman v. BellegardeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Anderson v. TrotterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Rue v. Oregon & Washington RailroadWashington Supreme Court · 1920
  3. Garrett v. CookCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Reno Brewing Co. v. PackardNevada Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Ford v. County of ButteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

2 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