Wright v. Roseberry
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Yolo County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
Ejectment. The plaintiff was nonsuited at the trial, and appeals from, the' judgment upon a bill of exceptions. The question is, whether the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case. His evidence consisted of two certificates of purchase and certain other documentary evidence tending to show that the land was swamp-land, and certain testimony in relation to said certificates. The case has been before the supreme court of the United States, and that court held that the documents made a prima facie case for the plaintiff. (Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 517.) That…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wright v. RoseberrySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Landers v. BoltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Pearson v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Janson v. BrooksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- St. John v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- In Re the Estate of ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Williams v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Sublett v. Henry's Turk & Taylor LunchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Goldstone v. Merchants' Ice & Cold Storage Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- Davis v. CrumpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.