Mills v. Rossiter Eureka Etc. Mfg. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
The action was to quiet title. Defendant Whitney alleged an interest in the land growing out of an assignment to him of a certain contract for its sale. Judgment passed for plaintiff and defendant Whitney appeals.
The undisputed facts are that one E. M. Morton went into possession of the land in controversy on the twenty-first day of July, 1906, under a duly executed executory contract to pay for the land at the rate of ten dollars a month for forty consecutive months. While so in possession he entered into a contract with defendant Whitney to the effect that he would sell to Whitney his…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dolbeer v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Taylor v. WestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Dennis v. Table Mountain Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by5 opinions
- James v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1937
- Colwell v. Grandin Investment Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1922
- Boundary County v. WoldsonDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 1943
- Central Construction Co. v. HartmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Noyes v. HuffmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919