Franklin v. Dorland
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
*177By the Court,
Shafter, J.
This action was brought to recover the pieces or parcels of lands in San Francisco described in the complaint and referred to throughout the case as parcels 1, 2 and 3. The plaintiff had judgment for the first and third parcels and the defendant for the second. The defendant appeals from the judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the first and third parcels and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.' No appeal has been taken by the plaintiff from the judgment against him for the second parcel.
The answer denies the right of the plaintiff to the several…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Satterlee v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Sam Raine Const. Co., Inc. v. Lakeview Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1981
- Reiner v. HermannCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Keyser v. San Diego Electric Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Whiteman v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.