Crouse-Prouty v. Rogers
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, granting a new trial. Chas. Monroe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to quiet title. Judgment went for defendants ; plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which motion was granted, and defendants prosecute this appeal from the order granting the same.
The judgment was based upon certain findings of the court - to the effect that the purchase price of the lot in controversy was not paid to Glassell pursuant to the contract; that the deed to plaintiff Carol Crouse-Prouty did not describe the land set out in the complaint; that at the time defendant Julia Nolan Rogers received the deed to the lot she had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the deed from…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brooks v. San Francisco & North Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Cole v. WilcoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Von Schroeder v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Rogers v. McCartneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Duncan v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Crouse-Prouty v. RogersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917