Legal Opinion

Rixford v. Zeigler

California Supreme Court

Decided February 6, 1907No. S.F. No. 3607PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

This action was brought by the original plaintiff, F. G. Halsey, for the partition of a certain piece of land. It was averred in the complaint "that Halsey and defendant Zeigler were the owners in fee of the land as tenants in common; and the other defendants were made parties, as claiming some interest in the property. Zeigler answered, admitting and averring that plaintiff and himself were owners of the land in contest as tenants in common, and united in plaintiff’s prayer for partition. Defendant Ferine answered, denying that plaintiff and Zeigler were the owners of the land, and averring…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arthur v. WestonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
  2. Suñol v. HepburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1850
  3. Phelan v. County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
  4. Wiseman v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Hard Money Funding, Inc.Court of Appeals of Utah · 2004
  2. Morton v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Jones v. Alpine Investments, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
  4. Nilson v. HamiltonUtah Supreme Court · 1918
  5. State v. McGeeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925

6 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