Danielson v. Neal
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiffs seek by their action the correction of two deeds made to them by defendant, the one for three acres of land, the other for one acre of land. The facts touching the first deed sufficiently indicate the character of the mutual mistake which it is alleged existed in the making of both deeds. Those facts are that plaintiff, Hattie C. Danielson, bought of defendant three acres of land. It is alleged that these three acres were to have a southern frontage of 417.4 feet and “should be bounded on the east by the easterly line of defendant’s land and on the south by the Southern Pacific…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Heinlen v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Jones v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Board of Commissioners v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Cleveland v. BatemanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1915
- Monson v. FischerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- McDonald v. FiliceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Bowers v. BennettIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Reserve Oil & Gas Co. v. MetzenbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.