F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa Cruz
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Cushing & Cushing, and Charles B. Younger, for Appellant. H. A. van C. Torchiana, W. P. Netherton, J. Leslie Johnston, City Attorney, and Stratton, Kaufman & Torchiana, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to quiet its title to a parcel of land in the city of Santa Cruz. The defendant city answered, asserting title, as successor to the state of California, to a portion of the land described in the complaint, and alleging, further, a twenty years’ adverse possession of such portion of the tract. In addition, it alleged that for more than twenty years prior to the commencement of the action, the city of Santa Cruz and its predecessor, the town of Santa Cruz, together with the inhabitants thereof, had been using all of the lands thus claimed by the city as and for…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Hart v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. California Fish Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Grisar v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Botiller v. DominguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Teschemacher v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Borax Consolidated, Ltd. v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Gion v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento CountyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- People v. SayigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.