Heath v. Wilson
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
When this case was in Department, the foregoing opinion was prepared. After further consideration, we are satisfied with and adopt the same, and are of the opinion that for the reasons therein given the judgment of the lower court was right. It is therefore not necessary to consider the contention of counsel for respondent that the latter had acquired a perfect title by adverse possession.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Shaw, J., Van Dyke, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.
Rehearing denied.
Beatty, C.J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.
2Cited by20 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. PostedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Hale v. Belgrade Co., Ltd.Montana Supreme Court · 1925
- Jarvis v. WebberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Eidinger v. SigwartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Ferguson v. LarsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.