Tyrrell v. Baldwin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
Action to quiet title.
The appeal is from the judgment, the only question being as to the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiff.
Two years ago the respondent moved to dismiss the appeal herein, and the motion was denied. (72 Cal. 192.) At the hearing of the appeal on its merits the motion was renewed. It is based on the same facts, and as leave *472was not granted in the former order to renew the motion, there is nothing to commend it to the discretion of the court. It is therefore denied. (Ford v. Doyle, 44 Cal. 637.)
As to the merits: On…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Gee v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Johnston v. S.F. Savings UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- In re Estate of BallentineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- In re Estate of DelaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Herrold v. ReenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Pigeon Point Ranch, Inc. v. PerotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
- In Re the Estate of FathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Saddlemire v. Stockton Savings & Loan SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Sanders v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Hannon v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.