Sacre v. Chalupnik
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.
In this action in ejectment the plaintiff had judgment for restitution of the property, with damages for the withholding of the same, and the defendants have appealed. One of the points strongly relied on for a reversal is that by reason of a finding of the trial court as to the date of the entry, and ouster, by the defendants, which is in accord with a purported stipulation of fact, the plaintiff failed to; establish the right to maintain the action, and as a consequence the judgment is unsupported by the findings and is against law. Another contention relates to the construction and effect…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- In re the Estate of DoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Metropolis Trust & Savings Bank v. BarnetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Gould v. StaffordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Graves v. HebbronCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of EqualizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Gonzales v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Wirin v. ParkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Martinez v. MartinezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Paramount Citrus Assn. v. JacobsenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.