Legal Opinion

Brown v. Canty

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 31, 1916No. Civ. No. 1507PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

ELLISON, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet her title to a quarter-section of land in Fresno County. Her complaint alleged facts showing the legal title to the land to be in her. The defendant, for answer, denied plaintiff’s title. He then alleged a certain contract entered into 'between him and certain ether parties, viz., J. E. Hughes, T. E. Braly, and W. J. Hotchkiss, the result of which was that Hotchkiss had purchased the land described in the complaint from the state of California, but had the state make its deed to one Barthold, in trust for said Hotchkiss and this…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. De Pedrorena v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Commercial Block Realty Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Elmore Jameson Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Hauret v. PedelabordeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  5. Bossen v. BeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API