Lick v. Diaz
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This is the third appeal taken in this cause. The case will be found reported in 30 Cal. 65, and 37 Cal. 437. It was an action to quiet the title to fifty vara lot number seventeen, situate on Jackson street, between Montgomery and Kearny streets, City of San Francisco. The facts will be found in the former reports.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This is the third appeal taken in this cause. The case will be found reported in 30 Cal. 65, and 37 Cal. 437. It was an action to quiet the title to fifty vara lot number seventeen, situate on Jackson street, between Montgomery and Kearny streets, City of San Francisco. The facts will be found in the former reports. On the last trial Kasario Galindo was called as a witness by the defendants, and was allowed to testify, under plaintiff’s objection, that he saw Mesa, in 1844 or 1845, doing work on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
1. There was no error in permitting the defendants to prove that Prado Mesa performed work upon the premises. The answer set up that the said Mesa always, during his lifetime, asserted title to an undivided moiety of the lot in ques*480tion, and the evidence, in this respect, tended in some degree to support that allegation of the defendants.
2. bTor can the order denying the plaintiff a new trial be reversed because of the admission in evidence of the declarations of Mesa made in his lifetime to the witness, Galinda.
TTpou the former appeal in this cause it appeared…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Stockton Savings Bank v. StaplesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Murphy v. DafoeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
- Daniels v. Andes Insurance Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1876
- Venard v. GreenUtah Supreme Court · 1886
- Creighton v. HershfieldMontana Supreme Court · 1874