Legal Opinion

Smart v. Peek

California Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 1931No. Docket No. Sac. 4451PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendants in an action brought by him to quiet his title to four parcels of mining property and a mill site situate in the county of Calaveras. Defendants assert that plaintiff’s title has been divested by proceedings taken against said property for nonpayment of county taxes for the fiscal year 1913-14 which resulted in the sale of the property to them by the state of California under the provisions of section 3897 of the Political Code. Plaintiff attacks the validity of said proceedings, and further contends that as the pleadings stand defendants are…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Graciosa Oil Co. v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Bates v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Snell v. WelchMontana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Murray v. Tulare Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Haley v. AmestoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Routh v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. White Lighting Co. v. WolfsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Myers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
  4. Martin v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  5. South Shore Land Co. v. PetersenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964

18 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