Legal Opinion
Harris v. Seidell
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 15, 1934No. Civ. 5162PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HELD, J., pro tem.
This is an action in unlawful detainer.
The complaint alleges that the Stockton Abstract & Title Company, on the ninth day of January, 1931, became the owner in fee simple of certain lands in the county of Glenn, by virtue of a sale made by the trustees named in a deed of trust, which sale was the subject of consideration by this court in the case of Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., this day decided (ante, p. 406 [36 Pac. (2d) 1102]). Attached to the complaint is a copy of the trustees’ deed. A conveyance by the Stockton Abstract & Title Company to plaintiff is set forth, followed…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Todhunter v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- Ralphs v. HenslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Gardiner v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Clary v. HoaglandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Becker v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1907
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Askew v. Joachim Memorial HomeNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1975
- Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Evans v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Freeze v. SalotCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Sellery v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.