Legal Opinion

Rice v. Carey

California Supreme Court

Decided August 5, 1915No. Sac. No. 2145PublishedCited by 30 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The plaintiffs, as executors of the will of J. M. Hood, brought this action to quiet title to a tract of one hundred and sixty acres of land, situated in Yolo County. The defendants are husband and wife.

The complaint was in two counts. The first, after setting up the representative character of the plaintiffs, alleged that Hood at the time of his death was the owner and in possession of the property and that the defendants claimed an interest therein adverse to the interest of the decedent and his estate. The second count alleged that the defendant, Ida Belle Carey, claimed under two alleged…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Ruggles v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Pennie v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Bates v. RybergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  5. Roach v. CoffeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Decou v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Chase v. LeiterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Osborn v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  4. Brown v. LairdOregon Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Collison v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961

25 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