Noe v. Splivalo
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Fourth District Court, City and County of San Francisco. Morrisos, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Department No. 2, Thornton, P. J.:
This is an action to quiet title to a lot of land situate in the City and County of San Francisco. The complaint is in the usual form. All of the allegations of the complaint are denied as to one-third of the lot of land referred to. The defendants also set up in defense the Statute of Limitations; and for another and separate defense (styled the third defense) pleaded, that on the 17th day of March, 1862, one José de Jesus Noe, the father of the plaintiff, was the owner of the tract of land in controversy, and also the owner of a tract of land whereon one…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morrison v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cunha v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Estate of MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
- In re the Estate of GilmoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- In re Estate of StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Kilmartin v. NasoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.