Irvine v. Adler
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Ejectment to recover the “ narrow strip of the land conveyed to Wainwright, included within the lines of the O’Connor lot ” mentioned in the opinion. The defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
BLissling was in the actual possession and occupation in 1853, of the block of land of which the premises in controversy form a part. In that year he executed three deeds— one to Bryant & Irvine, one to O’Connor (the defendant’s grantor), and one to Wainright (the plaintiff’s grantor). The purchasers entered upon their respective tracts, and agreed to measure off with a tape-line, their respective lots, put up temporary fences, and that when the true lines should be *561ascertained, each should have his land according to the true lines; and they accordingly measured the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Brooks v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Broad v. BroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stuart v. MeadeSupreme Court of Virginia · 1916
- Quinn v. WindmillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Peters v. De Rose GraciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Smith v. RobartsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885