Legal Opinion

McCracken v. Hummel

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 1, 1941No. Civ. 2609PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet his title to two parcels of land in Tulare County. He had judgment and this appeal followed. Defendants have attempted to appeal from the order denying their motion for new trial which is not an appealable order. (See. 963, Code Civ. Proc.)

Plaintiff deraigns his title through tax deeds. No question is raised as to their validity, but only as to the quantity of the estate they conveyed. Defendants claim they are the owners of “the oil and gas rights” in the land in controversy. We will assume that by the expression, “the oil and gas rights” is meant the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Merchants Trust Co. v. HopkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  3. Palomares Land Co. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Payne v. CallahanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Central Manufacturing District, Inc. v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Trabue Pittman Corp. v. County of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Ulrich v. Amerada Petroleum Corp.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Leoke v. County of San BernardinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  4. Petroleum Exchange Inc. v. PoynterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Probasco, Sr. v. SikesWyoming Supreme Court · 1957

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