Burlingame v. Rowland
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This is an action to quiet title, the complaint being in the usual form. The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and sets up affirmative matter to the effect that plaintiff was the equitable owner and in possession of the property in controversy; that while so in possession, he promised and agreed with his daughter, one Lillie Rowland, that if she would take possession of the property and live upon it with her husband and family, he would give the same to her, and make her a conveyance when he was able to do so; that she and her husband took possession of the property…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Manly v. HowlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Bakersfield Town Hall Ass'n v. ChesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Anson v. TownsendCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Freeman v. FreemanNew York Supreme Court · 1868
3Cited by15 opinions
- Hunter v. SparlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Husheon v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Magee v. MageeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Kinsell v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Manning v. FranklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.