De Arguello v. Bours
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of San Joaquin, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
This action is ejectment, brought by plaintiff as devisee under the will of José R. Arguello, deceased; the com*448plaint alleging that José R. Arguello was seized in fee of the premises at the time of his death.
The answer admits that José It. Arguello was in his lifetime, and up to the 14th day of September, 1876, the owner in fee of the premises, but alleges that, on that day, he sold and conveyed said premises to the defendant for the consideration of $4,000, which was the full value thereof, and which sum was on that day fully paid by defendant Bours to said Arguello, and that said defendant…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Bruck v. TuckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Kentfield v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Morrison v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Willis v. WozencraftCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- McCall v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Prince v. LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Fleishman v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Windsor v. MinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.