Murphy v. Farmers & Merchants' Bank of Los Angeles
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to quiet title. Plaintiff is one of ten children of William H. Winston, who died testate in May, 1886; in June, 1886, his surviving widow, Mary E. Winston, was appointed executrix; plaintiff is a devisee under the will of deceased and claims as such; she brings this action to quiet her title to an undivided one-eleventh interest in a certain tract of land in Los Angeles county, as property of the Winston estate. The judgment was that plaintiff is the owner in fee of an undivided one-eleventh interest in the property in question; that defendant has no right or interest in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wilkinson v. LelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Brenham v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Weinreich v. HensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- In re Estate of PackerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Fast v. SteeleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Strudthoff v. YatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- In Re Estate of BenvenutoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Bagley v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Sunset Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of PomonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
- Schwan v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.