Hurt v. Pico Investment Co.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
Plaintiff instituted this action to quiet title to certain real property. The complaint is in the form usually employed in actions of this character. It alleges ownership in fee in plaintiff and that defendants claim some interest in the property adverse to plaintiff which claim is alleged to be without right. The prayer is that defendants be required to set forth the nature of their claims and that it be adjudged that defendants have no interest in the property and that plaintiff’s title thereto be quieted. The answer of defendant Pico Investment Company denies that plaintiff is the owner in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Goodenow v. EwerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Peterson v. GibbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Burns v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Phillips v. HagartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Bashore v. MooneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- District Bond Co. v. PollackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Goodfellow v. BarrittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Hendershott v. ShipmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Elbert, Ltd. v. ClareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Butler v. ButlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.