Petitpierre v. Maguire
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Milton Shepardson, Garber, Creswell & Garber, and R. F. M. Soto, for Appellant. Campbell & Baldwin, Edmund Tauszky, Hugo K. Asher, and Andrew G. Maguire, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment and order denying a new trial, in an action brought by her to quiet her title to a lot of land in the city and county of San Francisco.
The material facts of the case can be more easily understood with the aid of the following diagram:—-
The land in controversy is the strip thirty-five by one hundred feet marked “A” on this diagram. On August 16, 1860, Blihu F. Baldwin was the owner of the portions of block 69 marked A, B, C, and D, a parcel fronting two hundred and seventy-five feet on Van Ness Avenue, with a uniform depth of one hundred and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Prescott v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Lankin v. TerwilligerOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- Currier v. HowesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Neely v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
- Sierra Union Water & Mining Co. v. WolffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Danielson v. SykesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Berton v. All Persons, Etc.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Parker v. SwettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Tract Development Services, Inc. v. KeplerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1988
- Mikels v. RagerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.