Magneson v. Pacific Mfg. Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. W. B. Rinehart, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action was to quiet title, the complaint being in the usual form, plaintiff alleging absolute ownership in herself. Defendant filed an answer and a cross-complaint denying the title of plaintiff and setting up that O. M. Magneson, the husband of plaintiff was, on the sixth day of February, 1911, and ever since has been, the owner of said premises, subject to defendant’s claim as follows: That said property was attached by defendant in an action brought by it against said 0. M. Magneson and, upon recovery of judgment, said property was sold by the sheriff under execution and purchased by…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Lubbock v. McMannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- People v. SalorseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Sanders v. RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Roth v. InsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Schroder v. Aden Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Cosper v. the Valley BankArizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Viotti v. GiomiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Palen v. PalenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Arighi v. Rule & Sons, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Sexton v. SutherlandNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.