Eversdon v. Mayhew
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion rendered in Department Two, and upon the former appeals therein referred to.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This case was affirmed in Department One, and a rehearing granted. We have again given it our careful attention, and are satisfied that the correct conclusion was reached on the former hearing, for -the reasons stated in the opinion of Commissioner Hayne. It was claimed in the petition for a rehearing that the statute of 1868 (Stats. 1867-68, p. 489), referred to and relied upon in the opinion of the learned commissioner *5as affording notice to the defendant of the plaintiff’s title, was not the one under which the deed of the county judge to Wasson was made. We think counsel are right in this…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Shotwell v. HarrisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Eversdon v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Montgomery v. BevansU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1871
- Braly v. ReeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- People v. LawrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Samuels v. MixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- People v. HarveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Steelduct Co. v. Henger-Seltzer Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glens Falls Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- Cushing v. PiresCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.