Legal Opinion

Davis v. Day

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 27, 1929No. Docket No. 6735Published

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

tem.suit to quiet title after a motion for a new trial had been denied. It will be unnecessary to describe the property involved other than to state that the said property comprises certain city lots in the city of Oakland. For the purposes hereof the lots may be described as lots 6, 10, 11 in block 2 as said lots appear upon that certain map entitled “Map of the R. F. Knox Tract, Brooklyn, Alameda County, California, etc.,” filed October 9, 1880, in the office of the county recorder of Alameda County. The separate claim of the defendants as affecting the property need not…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Jacoby v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Stege v. City of RichmondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Cadwalader v. NashCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Marysville Woolen Mills v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918

6 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