Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Vance

California Supreme Court

Decided October 1, 1890No. 13570PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

—This is an action of ejectment. It is alleged in the complaint that on the-day of June, 1887, plaintiff “ was the owner in fee-simple, and entitled to the possession,” of the land described as section 31, township 3 north, range 9 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, and that afterwards, in the same month, the defendant entered on the land, and ousted and ejected the plaintiff therefrom. A general demurrer to the complaint was interposed and overruled. The defendant, Vance, then answered. The answer denied that defendant ever was in possession, or claimed to be in possession,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Payne & Dewey v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Marshall v. ShafterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Heeser v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Turner v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Souter v. MaguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Corea v. HigueraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Davis v. CrumpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Nathan v. DierssenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Cuneo v. LawsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. McKay v. McDougalMontana Supreme Court · 1897

9 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