Legal Opinion

Boring v. Filby

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 10, 1957No. Civ. 9136PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARNS, J. pro tem. *

Plaintiffs brought this action against the defendants for the purpose of quieting their title to certain real property which they had previously purchased from the defendants. Defendants, in their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, allege affirmatively that they were owners of a one-half interest in the oil, gas, hydrocarbon and other mineral rights in the subject property. The trial court found that at the time of the conveyance to plaintiffs by defendants, the defendants were the owners of a certain interest in gas, oil and mineral rights by contract with Capital Company,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Union Oil Co. v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Seligman v. CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kraemer v. KraemerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Alamo School District v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  3. Nadell & Co. v. GrassoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  4. United States v. McKenzie CountyDistrict Court, D. North Dakota · 1960
  5. Waters v. WatersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

2 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