Legal Opinion

Calderwood v. Tevis

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.

This is an action to quiet the title to a lot in the City of San Francisco. It appears, that in March, 1862, the defendant Tevis brought an action against one O’Connell, to recover the possession of these same premises, and at the time of commencing the action, he filed a notice of Us pendens, in accordance with Sec. 27 of the Practice Act. While that action was pending, O’Connell conveyed the premises to plaintiff and one Johnson; and the plaintiff applied for leave to be substituted in that action as defendant in the place *336of O’Connell, but it was refused by the Court. In August, 1862,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hestres v. ClementsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Sannickson v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855
  3. Tevis v. O'ConnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Brooks v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Amador Canal & Mining Co. v. MitchellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Darke v. SmithUtah Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Jordán v. GómezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912
  5. Jordán v. GómezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API