Raimond v. Eldridge
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, City and Comity of San Francisco. The plaintiff appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Crockett, J.:
On motion of the defendant a nonsuit was granted in this case upon the plaintiff's opening statement of the facts which he expected to prove. These facts were: First—That the land in controversy was within the limits of the Van Hess Ordinance. Second—It was admitted that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the demanded premises within five years next before the commencement of the action, and that the action was not commenced within one year next after the passage of the Act of March 5th, 1864. Third—That five years had not elapsed between the time when the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Inderbitzen v. Lane HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Moore v. MoffattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Shain v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.