Nathan v. Dierssen
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.
Action to quiet title. A tract of land on the west side of the Sacramento River, in Yolo County, including the premises in controversy, up to the third day of February, 1889, belonged to one Herman Huber, at which time the said Huber died. It was proven on the trial that Augusta J. Huber was the widow of said Huber, deceased, and Herman L. Huber, their son, and that said Augusta and Herman L. were the devisees of said Herman Huber, deceased, under his last will and testament; that said will and testament had been admitted to probate in the superior court of Sacramento County; that said…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Tuffree v. PolhemusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Cavanaugh v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Moyle v. ConnollyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by6 opinions
- Martin v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Silva v. AzevedoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Nathan v. DierssenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Moniz v. PetermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- United States v. Real Property Located at Incline VillageDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.