Legal Opinion

Gamble v. Fierman

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 4, 1927No. Docket No. 3123PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BUCK, J.,

pro tem. — This is an appeal by defendants from a judgment enjoining defendants from violating a building restriction in a residence district. [1] Plaintiff and defendants are the owners, respectively, of adjoining lots, each deraigning title by a separate chain of title from a common grantor. Consequently, as between plaintiff and defendants, there is no privity either of contract or estate, and the right claimed by plaintiff is in the nature of an equitable easement as defined and exemplified in the cases of Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 [183 Pac. 945], McBride v. Freeman, 191…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Werner v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. McBride v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Martin v. HolmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Berryman v. Hotel Savoy CompanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Quatman v. McCrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn.California Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Smith v. Second Church of Christ, Scientist, PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1960
  3. Sain v. SilvestreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. King v. KuglerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  5. Mock v. ShulmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

9 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