Legal Opinion

Galvin v. Palmer

California Supreme Court

Decided May 27, 1896No. S. F. No. 22PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. John Hunt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Appeal from the order granting a new trial. Plaintiffs, who- at the date of the commencement of this action were minors, averred their ownership and possession of a piece of land situated at the corner of Beach and Hyde streets, in the city and county of San Francisco. They further averred that defendant asserted title to the land; that this title was based upon a deed obtained by defendant’s grantor from the city and county of San Francisco by fraud. After the United States had granted the land to the city and county of San Francisco, upon trust to convey to those in bona fide possession at…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Kauffman v. MaierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Payne & Dewey v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  3. Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Hecht v. SlaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Sanford v. Gates, Townsend & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1898
  2. F. A. Hihn Co. v. City of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Galvin v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. In Re Kostohris' EstateMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  5. People v. DarlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

11 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