Legal Opinion

Patchett v. Webber

California Supreme Court

Decided April 1, 1926No. Docket No. S.F. 11021PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLennon, J.

Further consideration of this case after hearing and determination by the court of appeal in the first instance satisfies us that the reasoning and conclusion of the court of appeal are correct and we, therefore, adopt the opinion of Mr. Justice Nourse as the opinion of this court, as follows:

“This action was commenced on December 11, 1922, for the purpose of quieting title to certain property situated in the city of Napa. Plaintiffs had judgment quieting their title to a portion of the property involved and defendant had judgment awarding him the remaining portion. From the portion of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Alhambra Addition Water Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Weinreich v. HensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Beckett v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  5. In Re the Estate of McGeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bernkrant v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Beneficial Life Ins. Co. v. WakamatsuIdaho Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Bierschbach v. HeighoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Cohn v. KleinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Jay v. DollarhideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

9 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