Legal Opinion

Crescent Canal Co. v. Montgomery

California Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1899No. S. F. No. 1084PublishedCited by 34 opinions

• APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County refusing to vacate a judgment. E. W. Risley, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

This appeal is from an order denying the' motion of J. G. James for an order to vacate and set aside the judgment made and entered herein on the nineteenth day „ of May, 1897. The motion is based upon affidavits, pleadings, and files in the case, minutes of the court and certain deeds of conr veyance, all of which are embodied in the bill of exceptions. brought up with the appeal. The facts of the case are about these: William Johns and Thomas Poyser were owners and in-*136possession of fractional section 4, lying north, of the Laguna de Tache grant, in township 18 south, range 19 east, Mount…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Norton v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fé RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Board of Commissioners (No. 2) v. YoungerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Baker v. O'RiordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  4. People v. MullanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Stewart v. SpauldingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Olivera v. GraceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. People v. MerkourisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Suckow v. AldersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Matter of CarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API