MacHado v. Canty
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. George E. Church, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action, brought in the usual form to quiet title, resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, from which the appeal is taken on the judgment-roll.
The decisive question is whether the findings support the judgment. The court found: "That the plaintiff is now, and for. more than three years prior to the commencement of this- action has been, the owner, in fee and entitled to the possession of that certain real property [describing it]. That the defendant, D. J. Canty, claims some right, title or interest in said real property adverse to said plaintiff; .that the said claim of defendant is based…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Warren v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Krasky v. WollpertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Harper v. RoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
- Murphy v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Smith v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Crystal Lime & Cement Co. v. RobbinsUtah Supreme Court · 1949
- Shipp v. SheffieldUtah Supreme Court · 1941