Legal Opinion

Payne v. Neuval

California Supreme Court

Decided December 31, 1908No. L.A. No. 2172PublishedCited by 33 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sullivan & Sullivan, Theo. J. Roche, and Thos. A. Norton, for Appellants. C. P. Kaetzel, Wm. Shipsey, and Prank P. Deering, for Respondents.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for plaintiffs and from an order denying the motion of defendants for a new trial. The action was one to quiet title, and around a certain document set forth in the complaint cluster all of the problems presented by this appeal. The instrument in question was executed by the grantors of plaintiffs in favor of defendants’ decedent. It is in substantially the following language:—■

“In consideration of one dollar to me paid by P. Nivard Neuval, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and the further sum of twenty cents per ton, I, the undersigned, grant to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Spect v. SpectCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Heller v. DaileyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Acme Oil and Mining Co. v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Petroleum Co. v. Coal, Coke, & Manufacturing Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Welch v. British American Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Kolachny v. GalbreathSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
  2. J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  3. Gibson v. De La Salle InstituteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Transportation Guarantee Co. v. JellinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Woodworth v. FranklinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921

28 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