Newman v. Bank of California
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
The appellants and one Chapman were the owners as tenants in common of the real estate in controversy. The respondent Quinn was in possession, claiming to be the owner of the whole of the property, and holding the same adversely. Before the statute of *370limitations had run, Chapman brought his action against Quinn, alleging that he, Chapman, was the owner of the undivided one half of the property; that Quinn was in possession thereof without right, and had no right, title, or interest therein, and asking for the possession of the whole of the property..
The court below found the facts as alleged…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Read v. AllenTexas Supreme Court · 1882
- Stovall v. CarmichaelTexas Supreme Court · 1880
- Gray v. GivensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- McFarland v. StoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Read v. AllenTexas Supreme Court · 1882
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Spotts v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Horner v. EllisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Weidenmueller v. Stearns Ranchos Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
- McCormick v. MarcyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Palmer v. FixCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.