Legal Opinion

Myran v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 5, 1931No. Docket No. 7686PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, J., pro tem.

The action is one to quiet title. The defendants, other than K. G. Smith, are fictitious persons. Appearance was made by but one defendant, K. G. Smith, and the issues as joined were between this defendant and the plaintiffs. From a decree establishing title in defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

Before taking up the questions presented by appellants, we have the contention of the respondent to the effect that appellants failed to show any semblance of title in themselves and that therefore they cannot be heard to complain of the weakness of respondent’s title. The argument of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Stewart v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Adams v. HopkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Curtis v. La Grande Hydraulic Water Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Stewart v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  5. McDonald v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Miller v. McKennaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Cremer v. Cremer Rodeo Land and Livestock Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Nielsen v. GibsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Finley v. Yuba County Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
  5. Ivons-Nispel, Inc. v. LoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1964

13 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