Hitchcock v. Rooney
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Gavin McNab, Nat Schmulowitz, and A. H. Jarman, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff appeals from an order granting the motion of defendant Rooney for a new trial.
The action was one by which the plaintiff sought to quiet his title to a certain parcel of land in the city and county of San Francisco.
Defendant Rooney answered admitting that she asserted an interest in the property by reason of an unsatisfied attachment levied thereon and judgment liens against said land in an action upon a promissory note in which K. T. Rooney was the plaintiff and Marvie B. Hitchcock, wife of Lewis D. Hitchcock, was the defendant. There was a cross-complaint involving the sale of…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- People v. MilnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Moore v. GouldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Alferitz v. ArrivillagaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Shaw v. BernalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Dam v. ZinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Mazzotta v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Ham v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Stafford v. MartinoniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Smith v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Randolph v. HuntCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.