Nichols v. McCullom
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Leroy A. Wright, Wright & Winnek, W. H. Larew, J. S. Larew, C. F. Holland, and Powers & Holland, for Appellants. Eshleman & Swing, Phil D. Swing, and Conkling & Brown, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This action was brought to recover possession of a tract of land in Imperial County, with damages for the withholding. There was a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict in favor of defendants. From the judgment entered pursuant to the verdict the plaintiffs ’ appeal, bringing up the evidence by means of a bill' of exceptions.
The land in controversy is described as fractional section 16, of fractional township 17 south, range 15 east, San Bernardino base and meridian, containing 441.96 aeres more or less. The land thus described was originally public land of the United States, and being a…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Moore v. RobbinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Higgins v. HoughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Murphy v. KirwanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1900
- Sherman v. BuickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cox v. HartCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1921
- Matter of Application of ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- In Re ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Miller v. MarchusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915