Rosenthal v. Merced Bank
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Joseph H. Budd, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
Rosenthal and wife brought this action to quiet their title to lot 7 in block 147 in the city of Merced. The complaint was in the usual form. Defendant answered, and, in addition to denials, alleged that since July 20, 1893, it has been the owner in fee *200simple of said premises, “ on which said last-mentioned date the said plaintiffs made, executed, acknowledged, and delivered to defendant their certain deed in writing, a copy of which said deed is hereto annexed, marked exhibit A, and hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and on the 11th of October, 1893, in an action then…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wolf v. FleischackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
- Elias v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Reynolds v. PixleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- First National Bank v. GuerraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Seaton v. SonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Cox v. SchnerrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Kachigian v. KachigianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Webb v. StillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Schoonover v. BirnbaumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.