Legal Opinion
Cameron v. Ah Quong
California Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 1917No. S. F. No. 7292PublishedCited by 20 opinions
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County denying a motion for a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
This is the second appeal in this case, the first having been decided by the district court of appeal of the second district (Cameron v. Ah Quong, 8 Cal. App. 310, [96 Pac. 1025].) The issues as originally framed and the judgment given are thus set out in the opinion of the district court of appeal:
“Action in ejectment. The plaintiff alleges ownership of the lands in dispute and ouster by the defendant, and prays for restitution of said premises, for damages for withholding the same and for the sum of $1,750 as the value of…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Brison v. BrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Spect v. SpectCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Swift v. Occidental Mining & Petroleum Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- American National Bank v. DonnellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Faxon v. All PersonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Little v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
- Beatty v. Pacific States Savings and Loan Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Estate of HamptonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Long v. California-Western States Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Royal Thrift & Loan Co. v. County Escrow, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2004
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.