Legal Opinion

District Bond Co. v. Hilliker

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 31, 1940No. Civ. No. 6341Published

1Opinion of the Court

SCHOTTKY, J., pro tem.

This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff framed its complaint in the ordinary form of an action to quiet title. The defendants in their answer denied all of the material allegations of the complaint. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, the findings and judgment following the allegations of the complaint.

The record in the case is very brief, and the facts appear to be as follows: On January 4, 1929, the city of Los Angeles issued bond No. 895, series 28, for the widening of Third Street, under the provisions of the Street Opening Bond Act of 1911. (Stats.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Chapman v. JocelynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Campbell v. ShaferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Thompson v. McKennaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  4. McLauchlan v. BonyngeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  5. Warden v. Bittleson Law & Collection AgencyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

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