Kent v. Williams
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing to vacate the same, and from an order denying a new trial. George E. Church, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
There have been two appeals heretofore in the present case, and the facts involved in the controversy are set forth in the opinions therein. (Kent v. Williams, 114 Cal. 537; Kent v. San Francisco Savings Union, 130 Cal. 401.)
Upon the first trial of the cause in 1895 the superior court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and afterwards, upon the motion of the appellant herein, granted a new trial, which upon an appeal therefrom by the plaintiffs, was affirmed by this court upon the ground that, as the plaintiffs held a lien for their claim upon the Oakland as well as upon…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Klauber v. San Diego Street Car Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- Alpers v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Herriman v. MenziesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Zellerbach v. AllenbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Cady v. PurserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
- Drinkhouse v. Van NessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Ellis v. KlaffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Enter. Canal & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- Ryan v. RosenfeldCalifornia Supreme Court · 2017
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.