Legal Opinion

Holland v. Hotchkiss

California Supreme Court

Decided March 25, 1912No. S.F. No. 5710PublishedCited by 65 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County and from an order refusing a new trial. H. Z. Austin, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an action to quiet title and determine adverse claims to a section of land. The plaintiff proved a title derived from the United States. The defendant Hotchkiss, claims title solely under two deeds from the state of California to one Barthold, executed by the county tax-collector of Fresno County, purporting to be made in pursuance of sales and deeds to the state for delinquent taxes. Barthold afterward conveyed the land to Hotchkiss. The defendant Canty, claims a right to purchase from Hotchkiss the undivided one half of the land.

The judgment of the court below was that the plaintiff…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Toothman v. CourtneyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Couts v. CornellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Benson v. ShotwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by65 opinions

  1. Routh v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. O'Brien v. O'BrienCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Gavina v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Stein v. SimpsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. People v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951

60 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