Legal Opinion

Van Calbergh v. Easton

California Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1921No. L. A. No. 6066PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLawlor, J.

Plaintiff brought this action against Alice A. Easton, and several others under fictitious names, to quiet title to lot 22 in block 3 of the subdivision of the south half of lot 5 in block P of Hancock’s survey in the city of Los Angeles.

It was alleged that for five years immediately preceding the commencement of this action plaintiff has been the owner, in possession, and has paid the taxes on the property; that defendants claim and assert interests adverse to plaintiff, and that they are without any right whatever, “and that the said defendants have not . . . any estate, right, title, or…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Breeze v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Warren v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Perkins v. West Coast Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  4. Van Calbergh v. EastonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Edwards v. CurryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. American Ice Machine Company v. Modern Ice Equipment Company, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2025
  3. Jean-Baptiste v. California Coast Credit UnionDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2024
  4. Santana v. BSI Financial Services, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API