Legal Opinion

Minturn v. Burr

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1860PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the County Court of San Francisco.

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

Cope, J. concurring.

*108This was an action of forcible and unlawful entry and detainer. Plaintiff recovered judgment before a Justice of the Peace, from which judgment the defendants appealed to the County Court. The case was tried in that Court de novo, and a judgment of nonsuit entered. From this judgment the plaintiff appeals. The lot upon which forcible entry is alleged, is a triangular lot in the city of San Francisco. One of the witnesses stated that in April and May, 1858, Edward Minturn was in possession of this lot. Charles Minturn was acting as his agent; the property had been leased to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Brumfield v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1816
  2. Evill v. ConwellIndiana Supreme Court · 1828
  3. People v. RunkleNew York Supreme Court · 1811

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Shelby v. HoustonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Giddings v. '76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Stevenson v. AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
  4. Tidwell v. Chiricahua Cattle Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Felber v. ThorpeArizona Supreme Court · 1918

5 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