Vanderbilt v. All Persons, Etc.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
After a decision by the district court of appeal a rehearing was granted in this case in order that we might further examine the two principal questions, which were as follows: 1. Was the evidence of plaintiff’s actual possession of the property sufficient? and 2. Was the abstract of title offered and accepted in evidence by the trial court properly admissible under the provisions of section 1855a of the Code of Civil Procedure? As we agree with the answer of the district court of appeal to the first question, we adopt a part of its opinion upon that subject, as follows:—
“This is an action to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lofstad v. MuraskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Smith v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- Ex parte SparksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Roman v. Thorn & GorrieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887
- Dahler v. All Persons, Etc.California Supreme Court · 1912
3Cited by20 opinions
- O'Dea v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Frost v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- East Bay Municipal Utility District v. GarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
- McMillan v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.