Legal Opinion

Loustalot v. McKeel

California Supreme Court

Decided April 19, 1910No. L.A. No. 2460PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The facts are state in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

Plaintiff, alleging ownership in fee thereto, brought this action in ejectment to recover of defendant a strip of land 86 feet long and 9 and 8-10 feet wide at one end, and 4 and 6-10 feet wide at the other, lying, along the common boundary line of the lands of the parties located in the city of Santa Barbara. The complaint was filed September 17, 1907. In his answer defendant denied title in plaintiff, asserted title in himself and set up an affirmative defense of estoppel, based upon the claim that in 1897 the common boundary line being in dispute between himself and the predecessor in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Young v. BlakemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Helm v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Lewis v. OgramCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  5. Cavanaugh v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Clapp v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Martin v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. Muchenberger v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Nusbickel v. Stevens Ranch Co.California Supreme Court · 1921

19 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