Bath v. Valdez
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
This action was brought to quiet title to the north half of lot eight (8), block three (3), of Ord’s survey of the city of Los Angeles.
The decree of the court below established the ownership of the plaintiff to an undivided one half of the whole of lot eight (8), and that certain of the defendants were the owners of the other undivided half of said lot, in the proportion" of one twelfth each, and that plaintiff had not acquired the interest of the defendants by adverse possession.
The appeal is prosecuted by plaintiff from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Theller v. SuchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Jones v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Edwards v. Sonoma Valley BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Seaton v. SonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by41 opinions
- Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Elder v. McClaskeyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- Estate of RadovichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.