Hart v. All Persons, Etc.
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Thomas F. Graham, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
On August 25, 1911, plaintiff brought suit under the McEnerney Act to establish her title to two parcels of land situated in the city and county of San Fran cisco. In its amended answer appellant set up title to a portion of one of these parcels, but the court found in favor of plaintiff as to all land claimed by her. The appeal is from the whole of the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial, although no error is claimed except as to a portion of one lot of the land. The situation is explained by the following diagram, the land in dispute being the shaded portion:
It is…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Coryell v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Brumagim v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Williams v. City of San Pedro Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Lofstad v. MuraskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Lawrence v. FultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Pleasants v. HenryIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Bank of Amador CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hinds v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Breuning v. BerryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Miller v. DohenyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.