Richards v. Morey
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
HAYNES, C.
ction to recover possession of personal property. The plaintiffs had judgment for certain pipe, hydrants, tools, etc., of the value of $845.20, but their claim for the recovery of certain buildings was denied, and from that portion of the judgment they appeal, upon the judgment roll. The evidence is not brought up by bill of exceptions or otherwise. The only question is, whether the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment upon the facts stated in the sixth finding, which is as follows: —
“6. That the house known as the engineer’s house, and which is of the value of $200, and building…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kelly v. McKibbenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Faulkner v. First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Riciotto v. ClementCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Henderson v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Keech v. BeattyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
3Cited by17 opinions
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Peterson v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Ware v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Taylor v. BernheimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Rauer v. RyndCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.