Legal Opinion

Dingwell v. Seymour

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 2, 1928No. Docket No. 6140PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELCH, J., pro tem.

This action was commenced by Millicent H. Olmsted in her lifetime to quiet her title against appellants and a number of other co-defendants who have disclaimed any interest herein. The attorney-general of the state was made a defendant who, although served with summons, did not appear. The complaint is in the usual form of actions to quiet title to real estate. The complaint simply alleged that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the property described in the complaint and that the claim of defendants is without any right whatever and that they have no right, title, or…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hobbs v. McLeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Estate of HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. In Re the Probate of the Will of MacDowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Parks v. Northwestern UniversityIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  5. People ex rel. Ellert v. CogswellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Estate of HendersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Evans v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Armstrong v. WallaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Scripps Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. California Employment CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  5. Lois J. Newman (Formerly Lois J. Senderman) v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1955

32 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