Legal Opinion

Craviotto v. All Persons, Etc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 28, 1928No. Docket No. 6086PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRESTON (H. L.), P. J., pro tem.

Plaintiff, Agostino Craviotto, brought this action under the provisions of the “MeEnerney Act” [Stats. 1906 (Ex. Sess.), p. 78], to establish his title to two parcels of land situate along the waterfront in the city and county of San Francisco. Defendant, Emma Rose, answered, alleging that she was the owner in fee simple of the reversionary interest in one of the lots described in plaintiff's complaint, and that as to this lot the plaintiff was only the owner of a leasehold interest therein, which will expire in the year 1950.

The case was tried by the court and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. Santa Ana Westminster Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Wehle v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Bd. of Educ. of San Francisco v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Le Roy v. DunkerlyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Garner v. MarshallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McKelvey v. RodriquezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. Whittaker v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Zaccaria v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API