Legal Opinion

May v. Rosen

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 13, 1949No. Civ. 16783; Civ. 16784PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDoran, J.

The two sections, consolidated for trial as well as for appeal, involve virtually the same issues, but differ as to parties and in respect to the parcels of real estate involved. The original pleadings filed by the plaintiffs were conventional quiet title complaints. When the cases came on for trial plaintiffs asked leave to file amendments setting up a second cause of action but permission to do so was denied and the cases proceeded to trial on the original complaints.

According to the answer filed in the first case, “one Agnes J. Krupp de Celle, named as a defendant herein, from her separate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Parkside Realty Co. v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Nielsen v. EmersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Vail v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Alhambra Building & Loan Ass'n v. DeCelleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert InnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Schlothan v. RusalemCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Slack v. SlackCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API