Liebrand v. Otto
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. After the- decision in Department, the respondent filed his petition that the appeal he reheard in Bank, and the application was denied.
1Opinion of the Court
Morrison, C. J. :
The appeal in this case is taken from a final judgment of the late District Court of Santa Cruz County on a demurrer to the amended complaint.
The material averments to the pleading are, that the defendant, the Santa Cruz Railroad Company, is a corporation duly organized under the laws of this State for the purpose of constructing, conducting, and maintaining a railroad from the city of Santa Cruz to a point called Pajaro, near Watsonville. That on the 18th day of September, 1873, the plaintiff was, and still is, the owner in fee of a certain tract of land in the city of Santa…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Arrington v. LiscomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pennie v. HildrethCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Quatman v. McCrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Fitzgerald v. County of ModocCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Parsons v. SmilieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Secret Valley Land Co. v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.