Legal Opinion

Chapman v. Bank of California

California Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1893No. 14158PublishedCited by 28 opinions

„ Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

The findings of the court below disclose the nature of the action and relief sought. They are, in substance, as follows: In October, 1875, the plaintiff executed and delivered to McKinley, Glenny, and Latham conveyances of certain real estate, comprising 20,041 acres, undivided, in a larger tract of 86,000 acres, situated in the counties of Kern and Tulare, and at the same time conveyed certain other lands belonging to him, comprising 38,134 acres, situated in the counties of Fresno, Merced, Stanislaus, and Mariposa. About the same time he conveyed to McKinley and Glenny about 26,330 acres,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bailey v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Bell v. HudsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Harris v. HillegassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Robertson v. BurrellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Riley v. BlackerMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Stevenson v. BoydCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Knapp v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

23 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