Legal Opinion

Herriter v. Porter

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, Santa Cruz County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.

This is an action to recover the possession, or the value, if possession could not be had, of 7,770 redwood posts, in Santa Cruz County, brought by the plaintiff against Porter, Sheriff of that county, and Hihn intervened in the action, claiming to be the owner adverse to the plaintiff. The facts as agreed to are substantially as follows: Prior to July 6th, 1860, the intervenor, Hihn, and others were the owners of a tract of land in said county, known as the “ Soquel Augmentationand before that date the plaintiff went on the land, cut and took timber thereon, and made the same into posts, to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Halleck v. MixerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Phillips v. BericicNew York Supreme Court · 1819
  3. Cunningham & Brummagim v. HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Little v. City of PortlandOregon Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Continental Insurance v. H. M. Loud & Sons Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Thisler v. MillerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
  4. Whitney v. RedfernCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Pierro v. St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888

16 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