Legal Opinion

Luhrs v. Hancock

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1899No. Civil No. 669PublishedCited by 12 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District iu and for the County of Maricopa. Webster Street, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.

This was an action by the appellant to recover the possession of five certain lots in the city of Phcenix, and for the value of the rents and profits thereof. The complaint is in the usual form in ejectment cases. The defendants William A. Hancock and Lilly B. Hancock, husband and wife, answered, pleading “Not guilty,” and setting up the statute of limitations in bar of plaintiff’s right to recovery. Similar defenses were interposed by the defendant Thomas W. Pemberton, who, by way of cross-complaint, also pleaded his ownership and possession of said premises, and asked for affirmative relief…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Jones v. CliftonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Hixon v. GeorgeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
  3. Burkett v. BurkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Blair v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Albright v. AlbrightWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Staley v. Estate of HarberArizona Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Baldwin v. BaldwinArizona Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Schofield v. GoldArizona Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Greenwood v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1943
  5. Ferguson v. RobertsArizona Supreme Court · 1946

7 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