Legal Opinion

Reed v. Murphy

California Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 1925No. Docket No. L.A. 8251PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This matter is before us upon respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal. The action is in partition. Plaintiffs, in their amended complaint, allege that the plaintiff G. E. Reed and the defendant T. C. Murphy are the owners as tenants in common of the premises described in the complaint; that the said plaintiff has an estate therein to the extent of an undivided one-half interest in fee, and that the said- defendant has an undivided one-half interest and estate therein, and prays for a partition of the said real property. The answer denies that the plaintiffs, or either of them, own…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Warren v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Biaggi v. RamontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Boyd v. BurrelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Guigni v. RattoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp.California Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Bartholomew v. StaheliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  4. Avery v. AveryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Jones v. World Life Research InstituteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976

20 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