Lofstad v. Murasky
California Supreme Court
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate directed to the Judge of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. F. J. Murasky, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This is an application for a writ of mandate. The petitioner commenced an action under the provisions of what is familiarly known as the MeEnerney Act (Stats. Extra Session 1906, p. 78) to establish and quiet his title to certain lots in the city and county of San Francisco, being part of Outside Land Blocks, Nos. 270, 299, and 701.
This. act, which creates a system of judicial procedure for the establishing of title to real property where the public records which would otherwise establish it have been destroyed, provides that an action may be brought under it by any person who claims an…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. KerriganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Coryell v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Brumagim v. BradshawCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by25 opinions
- Alcaraz v. VeceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Faxon v. All PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Henry S. Grinde Corporation v. KlindworthNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1950
- Vanderbilt v. All Persons, Etc.California Supreme Court · 1912
- Contreras v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.