Legal Opinion

Rogers v. McCartney

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 6, 1906No. Civ. No. 184PublishedCited by 6 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The suit was brought against various parties to quiet the plaintiff’s title to numerous lots of land, comprising, among others, the lot in question; which is described as “lot 5, block 42, Ralph Rogers’ subdivision of blocks 41 and 42 of the Garvanza Addition No. 1, as per survey, map and record thereof, as appearing in book 15, page 54, Miscellaneous Records of said county.” The case was submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, which is substantially embodied in the findings of the court. Judgment was entered in favor of Seharff against the plaintiff and some of the defendants quieting…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Alcorn v. BuschkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Beattie v. CrewdsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Crouse-Prouty v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
  2. Provo Reservoir Co. v. TannerUtah Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Crouse-Prouty v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  4. Margraf v. HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Leonard v. OsburnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915

1 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