Bliss v. Sneath
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. George H. Buck, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
The plaintiff seeks by this action to recover the rent of certain lands demised by him to the defendant. The defendant malees no issue upon his liability for the amount claimed, but alleges in his answer that the plaintiff is only the agent of his wife, who is the owner of the land, and prosecutes the action in her behalf; that the demised land is contiguous to certain lands of his own; that he had constructed a division fence between the contiguous tracts, and that subsequently thereto, and prior to the commencement of the action, the plaintiff’s wife had inclosed her tract and made use of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Winslow v. GohransenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Brown v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Kelley v. KriessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Kent v. SnyderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Bliss v. SneathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by45 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- Estate of HormanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Jones v. MortimerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- B & P DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. City of SaratogaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.