City of Los Angeles v. McCollum
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Elizabeth L. Kenney, Charles L. Batcheller, and Thos. C. Ridgway, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
Action by the city of Los Angeles to recover possession of a parcel of land claimed to be part of a public street. Judgment went for plaintiff, and four of the defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.
The court finds that on June 27,1884, the defendant Elmira Hall, then the oxvner of a tract of land including the parcel in controversy, caused to be recorded a plat or map, in which said tract was divided into lots and blocks, and streets were laid out in connection with the plat for the use of prospective purchasers of said lots and blocks. By…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Morgan v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- City of San Francisco v. CanavanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- City of Chicago v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1894
- Crum v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. NoftsgerIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Davidow v. GriswoldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Clark v. AllowayIdaho Supreme Court · 1946
- Berton v. All Persons, Etc.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Allied American Inv. Co. v. PettitArizona Supreme Court · 1947
- City of Manhattan Beach v. CortelyouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.