Himmelmann v. Spanagel
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.
This is an action to recover an assessment for grading a street. It is alleged in the complaint, that certain persons other than the alleged owners of the lot, “have, or claim to have, some interest in, or claim upon said described premises.” The defendants, who are the respondents here, did not disclose or set up the nature or extent of their interest or claim, in or to the premises, nor did they adduce any proof on that point. It was held, in Poett v. Stearns (28 Cal. 226), and Anthony v. Nye (30 Cal. 401), that in complaints in actions to foreclose a mortgage, the general allegations that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Emery v. San Francisco Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1865
- Emery v. BradfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Himmelmann v. SteinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Nolan v. ReeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Anthony v. NyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- City of Chickasha v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Anderson v. City of MayfieldCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1892
- Engebretson v. GayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Harsh California Corp. v. County of San BernardinoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- Rawlins v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.