Legal Opinion

Stockman v. Riverside Land & Irrigating Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1883PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of tho Superior Court of the county of Sau Bernardino, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

Action to quiet title. It appears from the record that “by arrangement of both parties made in open court, six special issues were framed to he presented to a jury then and there impaneled to answer the same by their verdict as advisory to the court.55 Afterwards the jury returned answers to the issues. The cause was then proceeded with, and after being argued and submitted to the court for decision, the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law; and it is insisted, on behalf of the appellants, that, as the findings of the court upon some of the material issues are contrary…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Rank v. (Krug) United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1956
  3. Murphy v. ClaytonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Stevens v. Oakdale Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Holzer v. ReadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932

13 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