Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. Woolf
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order refusing to vacate the judgment. J. M. Seawell, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Action for the recovery of possession of real property. Plaintiff had judgment. Subsequently defendants moved to set aside and annul the judgment, which was denied. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion to vacate the judgment.
The judgment was as follows: “This matter coming on regularly for trial, in open court, by the court, both parties having waived a jury, the 24th day of September, 1908, in the presence of Gavin McNab, Esq., counsel for plaintiff, and of Joseph Slye, Esq., of counsel for the defendants, Louis Woolf and Mary L. Woolf, and of said…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Smith v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Gregory v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Kent v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Goyhinech v. GoyhinechCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Coonan v. LoewenthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Bowden v. GreenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Harris v. Spinali Auto Sales, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Harter v. King CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1941
- City & County of San Francisco v. CarraroCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Platner v. VincentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.