Legal Opinion

Bullard v. Rosenberg

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 1933No. Docket No. 839PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAMPBELL, J., pro tem.

This is an action brought to quiet th'e title of plaintiff to certain real property situate in the county of Tulare and also to certain real property situate in the county of Los Angeles. The complaint is in the usual form of such actions. The answer of defendant Jennie Rosenberg contains a general denial of the title of plaintiff and alleges in general terms that said defendant owns an interest in the property superior to any right, title or interest of the plaintiff. As a separate defense the answer alleged that the right, title and interest of plaintiff is subject to…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Minor v. BaldridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Hallidie v. EngingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Willett & Burr v. AlpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Mudge v. SteinhartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Bechtel v. ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Addy v. StewartIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
  2. DeMirjian v. Ideal Heating Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  3. Kreider v. American Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API