Hill v. Barner
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order denying a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sweeney & Tillotson, and Reid & Dozier, for Appellants Charles Barner et al. Wm. Singer, Jr., Guy Shoup, and G. O. Perry, for Central Pacific Railway Company, Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
Action to quiet title.
The court below gave plaintiff judgment quieting his title to the land in dispute, and it is from said judgment and the order of the court denying the defendants a new trial that this appeal is taken.
A motion to dismiss the appeal herein was submitted by the respondent, but it is clearly without merit, and, therefore, does not demand extended notice. The motion is denied.
The premises in controversy are described in the complaint as follows: “Lots numbered 1, 2 and 6, situate in that certain block which said block is bounded on the north by the north erly line of what is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. DawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Reusens v. LawsonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1895
- People v. GibsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Tapscott v. LyonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Shaw v. HillMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- South Shore Land Co. v. PetersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Hedrick v. LeeIdaho Supreme Court · 1924
- People v. Rio Nido Co., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Allison v. StateArizona Supreme Court · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.