Legal Opinion

Kenniff v. Caulfield

California Supreme Court

Decided August 27, 1903No. S.F. No. 2471PublishedCited by 64 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

This is an action to quiet title, in which judgment was rendered for plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from the order denying said motion, and from the judgment he appeals.

The court found that on the 26th of November, 1894, one Mary Glynn was the owner of the premises in controversy,, and on that day, in consideration of five dollars, executed and delivered to the plaintiff, a grant, bargain, and sale deed of them; that said deed was never recorded; that it was lost or destroyed, and that plaintiff had made due and diligent search and inquiry, but…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Juzan v. ToulminSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
  2. Sparks v. HessCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Eversdon v. MayhewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Prouty v. DevinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Kleimann v. GieselmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by64 opinions

  1. Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Hotaling v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  4. Moore v. TrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  5. Bell v. PleasantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

59 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