Plummer v. Woodruff
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. The action was brought to determine a contest as to the right to purchase a portion of a section of school land. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.
— After hearing in Bank, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached on the former de*30cisión of this cause by Department One of this court is correct.
Respondent contends that Mr. Justice Ross, in delivering the opinion of the court in Department One, was mistaken in stating that the court below found the occupation of the land in contest by appellant to be adverse to respondent. But there was no such mistake. The court below does not expressly apply the word “ adverse” to such occupation; but it finds facts which show it to be adverse. The findings are that appellant had about three…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McKenzie v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Taylor v. WestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Garfield v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Harbin v. BurghartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Jacobs v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wrinkle v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.