Legal Opinion

Leonard v. Flynn

California Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1891No. 13454PublishedCited by 21 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action to recover possession of 16.73 acres of land described by metes and bounds, and situate in Santa Cruz County.

Defendant Eugene Flynn disclaims all interest and possession.

Defendant Patrick Flynn denies the allegations of the complaint; alleges title in himself; alleges that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of sections 312, 318, and 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure; “that another action is pending between the same parties, asking for the same relief; that for a long time prior to November 12, 1884, defendant’s grantor was seised in fee and possessed of said…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
  2. Murray v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Ward v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Page v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  5. Mann v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Laubisch v. RoberdoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. McDonald v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Davis v. CrumpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Robinson v. ThorntonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

16 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