Hayford v. Kocher
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. The action was ejectment. The remaining .facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
The appeal being from the judgment alone, we are bound to assume that the findings are supported by the evidence. It appears, then, that the demanded premises were intended to be, but by mutual mistake were not, included in a conveyance of certain lands executed by the plaintiff Flavel Hayford to the defendant Catherine Kocher. Afterwards, in an action brought by'said Kocher against said Hayford to have said conveyance reformed so as to include the demanded premises, a decree for such reformation was duly made and entered.
After the execution of said conveyance, and before the commencement of…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Christensen v. HollingsworthIdaho Supreme Court · 1898
- Sav. & Loan Soc'y v. MeeksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Strahan v. HaynesArizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Stevens v. HolmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.