Legal Opinion

McDonald v. Drew

California Supreme Court

Decided February 8, 1893No. 14916PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

Action in the nature of ejectment to recover possession of a narrow strip of land, about eighteen inches wide and one hundred feet in length, being part of lot No. 4, block 20, of the city of San Bernardino, the east side of which strip adjoins the east boundary line of said lot.

The defendant pleaded title by prescription through an adverse possession during a period of five years.

The court found the facts as follows:—

“ For the purpose of this action, the following are stipulated as facts: —
“ 1. That at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff was, and for twenty…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ross v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  2. McNoble v. JustinianoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Allen v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  4. Webb v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Raab v. CasperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  2. Holzer v. ReadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Gilardi v. HallamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Baldwin v. TempleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. Rio Grande Western Railway Co. v. Salt Lake Investment Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1909

4 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