Carleton v. Townsend
California Supreme Court
«¡Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The defendants appealed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Rhodes, J.
Ejectment to recover a portion of the lot No. 1,188 in the City of San Francisco. Both parties claimed under the prior possession of their respective grantors, and both claimed title under the “ Van Ness Ordinance,” and the statute ratifying and confirming the same, and the plaintiff also relied upon adverse possession for a period exceeding five years before the entry of defendants. The jury found for the plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, and the grounds relied on are errors in law, committed by the Court and excepted to by them. Insufficiency of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Hart v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People ex relat. Bush & Higby v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Padgett v. LawrenceNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Mott v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Hatcher v. . RocheleauNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Sturgis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1909
- Garwood v. GarwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Righetti v. Shell Oil Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1989
- In Re Estate of HartmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- People v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.