Sting v. Beckham
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.
This is an action for partition of approximately 60 acres of unimproved land near Banning, jointly owned by plaintiff Emily J. Sting and defendant Mary Beck-ham. The only improvements on the land are a water well, a pump over which there exists a shed constructed by defendant Beckham and a 4-inch water pipe line running about 1,600 feet from the pump, across the real property, to a rock plant on adjacent land separately owned by defendant Beckham.
The court found that the only interest plaintiff had was an undivided one-half interest in the real property and well thereon. The water from the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- De Roulet v. MitchelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Mitchell v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- East Shore Co. v. Richmond Belt RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Priddel v. ShankieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Sauri v. SauriCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Berg v. KremersNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1970
- Butte Creek Island Ranch v. CrimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Romanchek v. RomanchekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Formosa Corp. v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Cunningham v. FrymireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.