Legal Opinion
Laughton v. McDonald
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 16, 1923No. Civ. No. 2601PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The complaint is in the usual form of an action in ejectment and the prayer is:
“1. For the recovery of the possession of the demanded premises and for the sum of $100 damages for withholding the possession thereof.
“2. For the sum of $50, value of said rents, issues and profits, and costs of suit.”
The defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint except admitting that they were in possession of the land in controversy, and as a separate defense and by way of cross-complaint they alleged:
“On or about the first day of January, 1900, one Katherine McIntyre was the owner in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Arguello v. EdingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Kinsell v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Churchill v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Howard v. StephensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
3Cited by7 opinions
- Schubert v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Williston Cooperative Credit Union v. FossumNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1990
- Harrison v. HansonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4711, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7790 in Re Nerces Yepremian Elize Yepremian, Debtors. Estepan Kabayan v. Nerces Yepremian Elize Yepremian Sanwa Bank of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Kabayan v. YepremianDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1995
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.