Glassell v. Hansen
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. Smith, McNutt & Hannon, George A. Lamont, and Frank R. Devlin, for Appellants. Bruner & Brothers, and Freeman & Bates, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.
Action in ejectment. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial.
The plaintiffs deraigned title through a United States patent, issued to John Bidwell in 1866, to a tract of land, described in said patent, on the western bank of the Sacramento River,, having said river for its eastern boundary. This patent was founded on a Mexican land grant, made in November, 1844, purporting to grant a tract of land containing four square leagues, known as Ulpinos, duly and finally confirmed by the United States courts. Sacramento…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cooley v. GoldenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Buse v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Naylor v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Tatum v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Bigelow v. HooverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Fowler v. WoodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Commissioners of Land Office of Oklahoma v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1920
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Glassell v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Bouchard v. AbrahamsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.