Legal Opinion

Hammond v. Cailleaud

California Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1896No. 15961PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. D. J. Murphy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

This action was brought by plaintiff as referee in the partition suit of Finnerty et al. v. Pennie et al., to recover the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars from the defendant. The action of Finnerty et al. v. Pennie et al., was for a partition of a certain lot situate on the corner of Natoma and Mary streets in the city of Ban Francisco, in which a decree was entered determining the interests of the several parties, the amount and priority of several liens thereon, and adjudging that said lot was incapable of partition, and ordering a sale thereof by Hammond, the plaintiff…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hickson v. RuckerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1883
  2. Galpin v. LambOhio Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Veeder v. FondaNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
  4. Black v. WaltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
  5. Bierce v. PierceOhio Supreme Court · 1846

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Vann v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
  2. Mains v. City Title Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Carozza v. Peacock Land Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
  4. McCarty v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Hamburgh v. HysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

16 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