Legal Opinion

Donner v. Palmer

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1877No. 751PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Bradley, the intervenor, appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Wallace, J.:

Donner, in April, 1861, commenced an action against the defendants to recover three undivided fourths of 100-vara lot Ho. 39, in San Francisco. He averred in his complaint that lie was seised of the premises as owner in fee. The answers of the defendants denied that allegation, and set up title in themselves to the several subdivisions of which they admitted themselves in the possession.

The only issue, therefore, joined between those parties rested upon the ownership in fee of the undivided three-quarters of the premises. Under these circumstances Bradley undertook…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Donner v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Donner v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Sharon v. Sharon, 11991 (Cal. 7-17-1889)California Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Oklahoma City Electric, Gas & Power Co. v. BaumhoffSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  3. Plymouth County Bank v. GilmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Zeitinger v. Hargadine-Mckittrick Dry Goods Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1923
  5. Reclamation District No. 3 v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

2 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