Benson v. Shotwell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
Action in form quia timet, or one brought under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of determining the adverse claim of defendant to beach and water lot No. 717, San Francisco. Defendant denies that he asserts any claim to the lot, other than that which he derives under a certain contract with the plaintiff for the purchase thereof; alleges payment of one thousand dollars under said contract, with offer to fully perform on his own part, but inability and refusal to perform on the part of plaintiff; and in addition files a cross-complaint against plaintiff, demanding a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Booth v. HoskinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hartley v. . JamesNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Brandt v. WheatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- De Cazara v. OreñaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Parnell v. HahnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Easton v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- DeGarmo v. GoldmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Holland v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1902
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.