Legal Opinion

Farnham v. Huston

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 11, 1919No. Civ. No. 2718Published

•The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHaven, J.

This is an action to quiet title and to establish a lost deed. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. The execution and delivery of the deed in controversy and the existence of a consideration therefor are conceded 'by appellant, but it is insisted that there was no sufficient proof of the contents or character of the document to warrant its restoration. The evidence as to these matters may be summarized as follows:

Robert M. Ford testified that he was an attorney at law; that Mrs. Huston; the grantor in the disputed deed, and Mr. Farnham, the grantee, came to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. White v. LuningSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
  2. Kenniff v. CaulfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Walsh v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Serrano v. RawsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  5. Hamm v. City of San FranciscoUnited States Circuit Court · 1883

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