Smith v. Penny
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action of ejectment to recover northern part of block three hundred and eighty-nine of the “ Potrero Huevo,” in the City and County of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Action of ejectment to recover northern part of block three hundred and eighty-nine of the “ Potrero Huevo,” in the City and County of San Francisco. Thomas Gilmore became the owner of the land in controversy, in virtue of and under the “Van Hess Ordinance,” being in the possession of the property by his brother, Samuel Gilmore, at the passage of that ordinance and its subsequent ratification by the Legislature. On December 21st, 1855, Thomas executed and delivered to Samuel his power of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The point is presented by the plaintiff, that the Court erred in permitting Bundle & Woodward to intervene and appear in the action as defendants. The record does' not disclose'the mode in which they were brought into the action; and even if there had been any irregularities or errors in that respect, the plaintiff cannot now avail himself of them, as'the record fails to show that he took any objection to that course of proceeding, or the order or decision of the Court in the matter. After having gone to trial upon answers filed by the interveners, without any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Davis v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3Cited by17 opinions
- Ortega v. CorderoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Gjerstadengen v. HartzellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- People ex rel. Attorney-General v. ReisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Banco Mercantil, S. A. v. Sauls Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1956
- Newman v. BullockSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.