Legal Opinion
Hefner v. Sealey
California Supreme Court
Decided April 26, 1917No. Sac. No. 2319PublishedCited by 15 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The administrator of the estate of Mary Sealey, deceased, brought this action to quiet title to two parcels of land in Butte County. The plaintiff and the five defendants are the surviving children and the heirs at law of Mary Sealey.
All of the defendants except Ida M. Sealey defaulted, and the plaintiff took judgment against them as prayed. Ida M. Sealey answered, asserting title under two deeds from Mary Sealey, dated March 10, 1906. The property in controversy consisted of a lot in the city of Oroville and of a tract of country land. The first of the deeds purported to convey the city lot…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Moore v. TrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Kenney v. ParksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Follmer v. RohrerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Dinneen v. YoungerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Merritt v. ReyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Knudson v. AdamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Anderson v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.