Silvarer v. Hansen
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court, save that it appeared that Dunlap entered into possession as the grantee of an invalid tax title.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
Ejectment. The defendant Struve claims to have become the owner of a portion of the land described in the complaint by adverse possession. The defendant Hansen claims another portion of the land by virtue of a boundary line alleged to have been agreed upon by the plaintiff and himself in 1873.
1. The facts found by the court show that the defendant Struve made out a valid defense under the statute of limitations. The deeds under which he and his predecessors claimed were sufficient color of title, and these deeds, taken in connection with the evidence as to the character of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Helm v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Oglesby v. HollisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Corwin v. BensleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Smith v. ShattuckOregon Supreme Court · 1885
- Tryon v. HuntoonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re Estate of HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Cavanaugh v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Montgomery & Mullen Lumber Co. v. QuimbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- West Coast Securities Co. v. KilbournCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Spotswood v. SpotswoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.