Cadierque v. Duran
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on the 21st day of March, 1872. On the 31st of May following, defendant Duran filed and served on the plaintiff’s attorneys a disclaimer of all interest in the “subject-matter of the controversy.” June 12, 1872, Duran and Brown filed a joint answer, and, on the 2d of April, 1873, they filed another joint answer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventeenth Judicial District, County of Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on the 21st day of March, 1872. On the 31st of May following, defendant Duran filed and served on the plaintiff’s attorneys a disclaimer of all interest in the “subject-matter of the controversy.” June 12, 1872, Duran and Brown filed a joint answer, and, on the 2d of April, 1873, they filed another joint answer. The substance of these answers was that defendant Duran had conveyed to defendant Brown all his interest in the land, and only appeared for the purpose of enabling Brown to…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
Duran applied to the Surveyor-General in 1868 to purchase from the State the west half of the south-east quarter of section 7, township 2 south, range 13 west, of San Bernardino meridian. The land was listed to the State November 24, 1871. The plaintiff in 1871 filed a protest against the approval of the location made by Duran; and on the 8th of January, 1872, defendant Brown also filed a like protest; and on the 12th of January, 1872, the plaintiff applied to the Surveyor-General to purchase the same lands. The Surveyor-General referred the contest to the District…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Anderson v. YoakumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Anthony v. JillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Gilson v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Prentice v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Dillon v. LegerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.