Cooley v. Miller & Lux
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sullivan & Sullivan, Theo. J. Roche, and John J. Barrett, for Appellant. L. M. Hoefler, Loewry & Gutsch, Edward F. Treadwell, and W. B. Treadwell, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
In the court below, after a trial upon the merits, judgment was given in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The plaintiff sued to obtain partition of certain lands, alleging that he was the owner of an undivided three hundredths thereof as tenant in common with the defendants, and that the respective interests of the defendants were unknown to him. The defendants divided into groups and filed five separate answers, each denying the interest of plaintiff and stating their respective interests.
The land formerly belonged to Miller Lux, a…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Crew v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- William Hill Co. v. LawlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Martinovich v. MarsicanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- In re the Estate of BurtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Montecito Valley Water Co. v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by69 opinions
- Loring v. Town of KingsleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Trafton v. YoungbloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Carlson v. LantzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
- Church v. QuinerWyoming Supreme Court · 1924
- Western Pac. Ry. Co. v. GodfreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
64 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.