Legal Opinion

Haaren v. High

California Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1893No. 19041PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Temple, C.

The action was brought to recover possession of land. Defendant denies plaintiff’s title, claims title and right of possession in himself, and pleads the statute of limitations.

*446The case was tried without a jury, and the court found as facts: That plaintiff acquired title to the demanded premises in June, 1882; that on the seventh day of July, 1885, the tax collector of San Diego County — where said property is situated — executed to defendant four tax deeds, being one for each lot described in the complaint. The deeds were executed in the proceedings for the collection of delinquent…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Rollins v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Chase v. TroutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Miller v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Ramish v. HartwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  5. Lawrence v. DefenbachIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

4 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