Chalmers v. Sheehy
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County denying a new trial. Lucas F. Smith, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN,C.
—Action to quiet title. Sheehy alone answered, and is the sole defendant. The court adjudged that plaintiff Mary D. Chalmers and defendant James Sheehy were owners, as tenants in common, of an equal undivided one-half interest in and to the premises in controversy, and that plaintiff Ella T. Chalmers had no interest therein. Plaintiffs appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial on a statement of the case. It was admitted at the trial, and the court found, that plaintiff Mary D. Chalmers was the owner of all the interest claimed by her. We do not see, therefore, that…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Melvin v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hager v. ShindlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Cooke v. CookeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1876
- Judson v. LyfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Jackson ex dem. Van Buren v. MyersNew York Supreme Court · 1821
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Lefrooth v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Hansen v. CramerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
- Wood v. MoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Waer v. WaerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- James v. Oakland Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.