Legal Opinion

Shaw v. Shaw

California Supreme Court

Decided September 14, 1911No. S.F. No. 5355PublishedCited by 4 opinions

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Humboldt County denying a new trial. Clifton II. Connick, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. They owned in common two hundred acres of timber land in Humboldt County. The value of such timber land was estimated (provided the timber was sufficient in quantity to justify cutting) at a dollar per thousand standing feet per acre. Thus, an acre of land containing one hundred thousand standing feet of timber was estimated to be worth one hundred dollars. The brothers desired to sell their two hundred acres and they had their land “cruised, ” that is to say, the amount of timber upon it approximately estimated, and were disappointed to find that it…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Moore v. DouglasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Huss v. Chicago Great Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
  3. Schroeder v. PissisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Savage v. MayerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Defenbacher v. WalkerDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1950
  3. Holland v. Columbia Iron Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Holland v. Columbia Iron Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API