Legal Opinion

Perich v. Maurer

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 31, 1915No. Civ. No. 1423PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The action was in ejectment and for five

hundred dollars’ damages for the unlawful detention of the land, and the judgment was in favor of defendants for costs. The real question in the case concerns the location of the boundary line between the land of plaintiffs and that of de fendants. It was admitted that each of the parties deraigned title from John A. Sutter, the plaintiffs to the “east 35 feet of lot 2 in the lot between N and 0 streets and Fifth and Sixth streets in the city of Sacramento and the defendants to the west one-half of lot No. 3” in said block. It is shown very clearly that…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dierssen v. NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Schwab v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hannah v. PogueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Martin v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Todd v. WallaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Rahlves & Rahlves, Inc. v. AmbortCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Mulberry v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1966

4 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