Marshall v. Hancock
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Action to quiet title. Judgment for defendants. Motion for new trial overruled. Plaintiff appeals.
The controverted question in the court below was as to the genuineness of a deed from one Michael White and wife to Henry Hancock, under which the defendants claimed to be the owners of one half of the real estate in controversy. The deed appeared upon its face to have been regularly executed and acknowledged. The plaintiffs claimed it to be a forgery, and that Michael White was out of the state at the time it purported to have been signed and acknowledged. The court below, after hearing…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Beckett v. Kaynar Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1958
- Larson v. SolbakkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Boykin v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1898
- Cone v. KeilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- People v. RodriquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.