Legal Opinion

Chipman v. Hastings

California Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 1873No. 3474Published

APPEAL from Third Judicial District, Alameda County.

1Opinion of the CourtCrockett, J.

— The action is ejectment, and the demanded premises are included within that portion of the “Rancho de San Antonio” which has been finally confirmed to Antonio Maria Peralta, one of the sons of Luis Peralta, deceased, to whom the rancho was originally granted. The plaintiff claims under the confirmee, Antonio Maria, and the defendant under the daughters of the original grantee, Luis Peralta. The case of Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 644, was also an action of ejectment for a portion of the tract confirmed to Antonio Maria Peralta, and in that ease, as in this, the plaintiff claimed under the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arrington v. LiscomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Minturn v. BrowerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Williams v. SuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
  4. Banks v. MorenoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API