Legal Opinion

O'Rourke v. O'Connor

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 2,107PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.

The plaintiff executed to Cody a conveyance of the premises in controversy, for the purpose of securing him against liability on a bail bond, which he had executed as a surety for the plaintiff, who had been arrested on a criminal charge. The deed was recorded, but the purpose for which it was executed, was not evidenced by an instrument in writing. From the execution of the deed to the commencement of this action, the plaintiff or his tenant was in the actual possession of the premises. Defendant, O’Connor, commenced an action against Cody, caused the premises to be attached, and judgment…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dutton v. WarschauerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Pell v. McElroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Kinnison v. Guaranty Liquidating Corp.California Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Snyder v. MartinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
  4. Pack v. HansbargerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Manig v. BachmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954

10 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