Legal Opinion

Hughes v. Cannedy

California Supreme Court

Decided December 16, 1891No. 14292PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion,

1Opinion of the Court

Fitzgerald, C.

This is an action to quiet plaintiff’s title to lots 19 and 20, in block 10, in the town of Winters, county of Yolo, and to cancel a tax deed issued by the tax collector of that county to the defendant, in pursuance of a delinquent tax sale theretofore made by him of the property in question.

The complaint, which is unverified, alleges ownership in fee and possession of the lots by plaintiff, and the adverse claim of an estate or interest therein by defendant, the nature of which is, in brief, as follows: The purchase of the lots by defendant on the twenty-fourth day of February,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Grimm v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  2. Wells v. HarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Landregan v. PeppinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Oullahan v. SweeneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Henderson v. GrammarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Johnson v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Hinds v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Miller v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Sanford v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API