Legal Opinion

Miller v. Grunsky

California Supreme Court

Decided December 28, 1903No. Sac. No. 795PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff sues to quiet his title to the west twenty chains of section 31 and of that part of section 30 lying south of the San Joaquin River in a certain township in Merced County. Defendant disclaims as to the east six and a half chains of the premises described in the complaint, but asserts title to the remainder, so that the tract in dispute is the west thirteen and a half chains of section 31, and of that part of section 30 south of the river. The land is swamp and overflowed, and part of the grant of the United States to the state of California. Each of the parties claims under the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vance v. ForeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Irving v. CunninghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Serrano v. RawsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Victory Oil Co. v. Hancock Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1954
  2. MacHado v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Kimball v. McKeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Swarzwald v. CooleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. City of Los Angeles v. DuncanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933

6 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