Legal Opinion

Pfister v. Dascey

California Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1886No. 8871PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Searls, C.

— This is an action of ejectment to recover some forty-five acres of land in Santa Clara County.

Defendants had judgment, from which and from an order refusing a new trial plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff’s title is based upon a constable’s deed of the *573premises, executed pursuant to a sale under execution levied thereon February 19, 1879.

Defendants (husband and wife) claim that the premises at the date of levy of the execution were, and ever since have been, their homestead, by virtue of a declaration of homestead, executed, acknowledged, and duly filed for record on the tenth day of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gregg v. BostwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Babcock v. GIBBSCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  3. DORN v. HOWECalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Prescott v. PrescottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. People v. HenryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  2. People v. NagyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Bullis v. StanifordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Tromans v. MahlmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  5. Maloney v. HeferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API