Legal Opinion

Young v. Patterson

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 1, 1908No. Civ. Nos. 545 and 546PublishedCited by 11 opinions

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Benjamin F. Bledsoe and Frank F. Oster, Judges. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTaggart, J.

These actions were brought to establish the right of plaintiffs to redeem certain real property after sale to the state for delinquent taxes, and a sale and conveyance by the state to the defendant Patterson. No. 545 against Patterson, the purchaser from the state, is to declare the sale and deed to him void; and No. 546 against defendant Wagner, as auditor of San Bernardino county, is for a writ of mandate to compel him to furnish an estimate of amount necessary to redeem and his authorization to the treasurer of the county to receive from plaintiffs the money required for the redemption of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. People Ex Rel. Russell v. Town of LoyaltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Heisen v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Reclamation District No. 535 v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  5. Baxter v. Vineland Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Mercury Herald Co. v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Kantack v. KreuerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
  3. Bray v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Estate of SampoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. SteeleNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930

6 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