Legal Opinion

Hanes v. Coffee

California Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 1931No. Docket No. L.A. 11140PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

This is an action to quiet title, the complaint containing the usual allegations. Defendant Coffee in his answer set up an interest in the property under a twenty-year lease by the terms of which he was given the exclusive right to prospect for and develop oil, gas and other hydrocarbon substances on the property. Included in the answer is a counterclaim for damages in the sum of $2,200, alleged to have been suffered by defendant through interference of plaintiffs with his operations. Later defendant Coffee amended his answer to add the allegation that the lease contained a provision for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Terry Trading Corp. v. BarskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. In re CurtisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Story & Isham Commercial Co. v. StoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Meyer v. QuiggleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Andrews v. RussellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Loving & Evans v. BlickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co.California Supreme Court · 1947
  3. California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Elevator Operators & Starters' Union v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Keenan v. DeanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

41 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