Pennie v. Hildreth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
The respondent, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Charles McLaughlin, brought this action to quiet the title to several tracts of land. Each tract of land in controversy is made the subject of a separate count of the complaint. Each of the counts after the first refers to the first count, and alleges that certain paragraphs therein which are necessary to the sufficiency of each count are true, instead -of restating such facts. The complaint was unverified. There was a demurrer to the complaint on several grounds; among others, that the same did not state facts sufficient…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Curtis v. SutterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Liebrand v. OttoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Pierce v. FelterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Smith v. BrannanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Flint v. Dulany & McVeighSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Price v. Sixth District Agricultural Assn.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Peterson v. GibbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Wall v. MagnesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
- Maguire v. CunninghamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- German-American Sav. Bank v. GollmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.