Legal Opinion

Churchill Co. v. Beal

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 18, 1929No. Docket No. 3806PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

Plaintiff had judgment in an action brought to quiet title to certain lands described in its complaint. From this judgment the defendants appeal. While the action is, in form, one to quiet title, the only issue really involved is the location of the west boundary line of township number 47 north, range number 2 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, in so far as it affects sections 18 and 19. If the boundary line claimed by the plaintiff, and adopted by the trial court as the true west boundary line of the lands belonging to the plaintiff, is the true boundary line, then the judgment of the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cragin v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  2. Foss v. JohnstoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  3. Weaver v. HowattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Washington Rock Co. v. YoungUtah Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Weaver v. HowattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. Paul E. Reimann, and Maybeth Farr Reimann, His WifeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
  2. Casad v. QuallsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
  3. Hoffman v. Van DuzeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Larson v. LarsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Trabucco v. SorrelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

4 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