Boreham v. Byrne
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a new trial. The instructions referred to in the opinion related to the validity of the declaration of homestead, and the effect of the deed described in the opinion, and involved the same questions of law which are discussed in the opinion relative to those instruments. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
Ejectment; tried by a jury. Verdict and judgment for- defendants. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, and order denying their motion for a new trial.
On October 14, 1862, one Mee, who at that time held the title to the land in suit, conveyed it to George Bore-ham, husband of plaintiff, Louise Boreham. It wras admitted that, from the day the foregoing deed bears date, up to the time George Boreham left San Bernardino, about July 1, 1865, he and his family resided on the land sued for.
Defendants claim title under a deed purporting to be executed by George Boreham and plaintiff Louise Bore-ham,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gregg v. BostwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Mann v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Gambette v. BrockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by16 opinions
- Matcha v. WinnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
- Johnson v. BraunerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
- Michelman v. FryeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Shearin v. Fletcher/Mayo/Associates, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
- Jones v. GunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.