Heeser v. Miller
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
This is an appeal from a final judgment for defendants upon demurrer to the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the “ plaintiff was at the commencement of the action, ever since' has been, and now is, the owner and seised in fee” of the premises in controversy, and that, by reason of a certain patent from the state, and certain conveyances, “said defendants claim estate or interest in said land *193adverse to this plaintiff.” And the prayer is, that such adverse claims be decreed to be void.
The allegation that the plaintiff is the owner and seised in fee, etc., is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Payne & Dewey v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Blasingame v. Home Ins. Co. of City of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Turner v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Ferrer v. Home Mutual InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Rough v. SimmonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by30 opinions
- Castro v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Goes v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Davis v. CrumpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- California Oil & Gas Co. of Arizona v. MillerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1899
- Hammitt v. Virginia Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1919
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.