Legal Opinion

Kowalsky v. Kimberlin

California Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1916No. L. A. No. 3591PublishedCited by 14 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Barlow.

Plaintiff sued to quiet his title to a half interest in section 5, township 26 south, range 26 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, in Kern County. According to the allegations of the amended complaint this half interest was acquired in 1888, when Henry I. Kowalsky furnished one-half of the purchase price to his brother, Joseph N. Kowalsky, who bought the land from the Southern Pacific Company, the grantee of the United States government. Joseph took the title in his own name and held it until 1910 when he sold and deeded the property to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bell v. PleasantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Renton, Holmes, & Co. v. MonnierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Wyrick v. WeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Firato v. TuttleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  2. South v. WishardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  3. Asisten v. UnderwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Ferguson v. FergusonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. Pellerito v. DragnaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API