Legal Opinion

Davidson v. Cucamonga Fruit & Land Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1888No. 12849PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

— The facts of this case may be briefly stated as follows: In January, 1869, John Mullan made application to purchase from the state of California a certain tract of land in San Bernardino County, containing six hundred acres. The application was approved by the surveyor-general on the twenty-first day of August, 1869, and on the fifteenth day of October following Mullan paid to the county treasurer of San Bernardino County twenty per cent of the purchase price, and interest on the balance up to January, 1870, and thereafter in the same month received from the register of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. People ex rel. Pixley v. StrattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. McKenzie v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Durfee v. PlaistedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Harbin v. BurghartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Corbett v. Physicians' Casualty Ass'n of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Brown v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of HartfordDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. MoirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Hunter v. ASRC Federal Data Solutions, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
  5. Marcos Ramos v. Amazon.com, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2024

1 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