Legal Opinion

Lunnun v. Morris

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 17, 1908No. Civ. No. 389PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the original opinion of the court, rendered September 24, 1908.

1Opinion of the Court

An action in forcible entry. The statement of facts in this case will be found in the decision rendered by this court September 24, 1907, post p. 713. We are satisfied with the views expressed in that opinion, except what is said as to the intendment declared to exist in support of the judgment.

The bill of exceptions contained in the record was treated as if entitled to be considered only in connection with the motion of appellant for relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground of mistake. In this we overlooked the fact that it was a part of the judgment-roll, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hidden v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Acock v. HalseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Bowers v. DickersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Bedan v. TurneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Christerson v. FrenchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Baird v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Brooks v. NelsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. A & B METAL PRODUCTS v. MacArthur Properties, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Cuddahy v. GraggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

11 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