Legal Opinion

Hilton v. Young

California Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1887No. 12110PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Butte County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

This is an action to quiet title. One Vanderhoof had a contract with the Central Pacific Railroad Company for the purchase of certain land. He paid twenty per cent of the price, and the interest on the balance for one year. While the legal title remained in the company, “for a valuable consideration, he granted and conveyed in fee-simple to the defendant, Mary M. Young, a part of said lands, the same being the premises in dispute in this action.” This deed transferred to the defendant the right of Vanderhoof to a conveyance from the company of the tract in controversy, and to that…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Tompkins v. SproutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Murchison v. MurchisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  2. Brock v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Hubbard v. San Diego Electric RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API