Legal Opinion

Phelan v. Anderson

California Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1897No. S. F. No. 901PublishedCited by 7 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court' of Santa Cruz County and from an order denying a new trial. J. H. Logan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaeotjtte, J.

This is an action of ejectment, brought by the executrix in the interest of the estate of Martin Phelan, deceased. An appeal is prosecuted from the judgment and order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The case was tried by a jury. Title is admitted in plaintiff, and defendant claims a right of possession under a lease. There are various controverted facts disclosed by the record, but, in view of the verdict of the jury, we are bound to assume those facts in favor of defendant. Defendant’s evidence was to the effect that upon November 1, 1891, plaintiff, by oral agreement, leased to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Talamo v. . SpitzmillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Coudert v. . CohnNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Rosenblat v. PerkinsOregon Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. United States v. Richfield Oil Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1951
  2. Linnard v. SonnenscheinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Eliason v. EliasonMontana Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Psihozios v. HumbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Redevelopment Agency of City & County of San Francisco v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

2 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