Legal Opinion

Maison v. Puntenney

California Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1931No. Docket No. L.A. 10613PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, C. J.

Appellants appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiff’s title to certain real property and awarding him $1500 for its use and occupation.

The complaint is in the usual form, and alleges ownership in plaintiff and an unfounded claim by defendants. As a second cause of action, it is averred that defendants have been occupying the premises without right, and that the reasonable value of the use and occupation thereof is the sum of $100 a month; The answer of C. W. Puntenney denies title in plaintiff, and sets up title and possession in himself. The defendants G. A. and Mary E. Puntenney, father…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Burris v. KennedyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Burris v. AdamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Jose Realty Co. v. PavlicevichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Thompson v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Carpenter v. SmallpageCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Horton v. HortonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  5. Kroeker v. HurlbertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

4 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