Legal Opinion

Burrow v. Carley

California Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1930No. Docket No. Sac. 4343PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

The judgment is affirmed.

This action was brought by plaintiffs to quiet title to and enjoin defendants from trespassing upon the northwest 14 of northwest *4 of the southwest *4 and west % of northeast % of northwest of southwest % of section. 32, township 3 north, range 14 east, M. D. M., a fifteen-acre tract of land. The land itself possessed only a nominal value, the real purpose of the action being to have determined the location upon the ground of the common boundary line between section 31 and 32 and of Moaning Cave, a natural wonder, and to secure the ownership thereof.

The facts are shown…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Crosby v. Fresno Fruit Growers' Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Vai v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
  3. Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Oliver v. the Swiss Club TellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  5. Jones v. Tierney-SinclairCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945

12 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