California & Nevada Railroad v. Mecartney
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. . The notice for redemption was sufficient, as it was given in substantial compliance with the code. (Pol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. . The notice for redemption was sufficient, as it was given in substantial compliance with the code. (Pol. Code, secs. 3780, 3785.). Whatever may be the fate of the tax deed the defendant cannot be deprived of the right to hold his lien until redemption he made. {Reed v. Lyon, 96 Cal. 504.) It was not necessary to assess the land and improvements separately, but the assessment of the “ right of way, together with the track and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
This is a suit to quiet plaintiff’s title to a strip of land described as “ that certain strip of land twelve and one-half (12£) miles in length, situate in the county of Contra Costa, state of California, commencing at a point on San Pablo creek, on land owned by H. Brockhurst, in said county, and running thence in a westerly and southerly direction to the Alameda county line in said state, together with a railroad track thereon and all the substructures and superstructures supporting the same, and the appurtenances, which, during all said times, were, and now are, used by said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- San Francisco & North Pacific Railroad v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Huntington v. Central Pac. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1874
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1948
- Johnson v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Slater v. Shell Oil CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Ocean Shore Railroad Co. v. DoelgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. CrossIndiana Court of Appeals · 1928
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.