Oglesby v. Hollister
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
An action to quiet the title to block of land No. 56i in the city of Santa Barbara. It was commenced February 16, 1887.
On the eighth day of April, 1873, A. A. Oglesby and W. F. Russell became the owners at law, as tenants in common, of blocks Nos. 56% and 70j-, by virtue of a deed of conveyance thereof executed by Frissius and Hernster. Russell paid no part of the purchase-money, and on the same day he and A. A. Oglesby entered into the agreement and executed the instrument following: “ Whereas, A. A. Oglesby and W. F. Russell have purchased blocks Nos. 56i and 70-¡- in the town of Santa…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ricard v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Pillow v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Prescott v. NeversU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1827
- Miller v. MyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Sawyer v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1836
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Russell v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Conaway v. ToogoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
- Weller v. ChavarriaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Feliz v. FelizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Beckett v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.