Legal Opinion

Stafford v. Russell

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 15, 1953No. Civ. 19403PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

Defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s tenth amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment of dismissal.

The first count of the complaint is in the conventional form of an action to quiet title to the described property. It is, however, premised upon the detailed factual allegations contained in the other counts. Count one must, therefore, stand or fall with the other counts. (Ephraim v. Metropolitan Trust Co., 28 Cal.2d 824, 833 [172 P.2d 501].)

In count two it is alleged that on or about November 1, 1945, plaintiff and one Hansberger entered…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Ephraim v. Metropolitan Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Hanrahan-Wilcox Corp. v. Jenison MacHinery Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Ray v. HanischCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Sierra-Bay Federal Land Bank Ass'n v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  3. Lambert v. Southern Counties Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Cadigan v. American Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. Fontana v. UppCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

8 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