Irvine v. Tarbat
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
This is what would formerly have been termed an action of ejectment to recovera small tract of land, parcel of one hundred and forty-three and twenty-three one-hundredths acres patented to the plaintiff October 13, 1890, by the government of the United States, situate at or near Carson Hill, county of Calaveras, state of California.
The defense set up was that the locus in quo was and is a part of the townsite of Carson Hill, and as such was not subject to patent by plaintiff.
The statute of limitations was also pleaded in bar of the action, but as such action was instituted April 13,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Quinby v. ConlanSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- SPARKS & Another v. PIERCE & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Gale v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Saunders v. La Purisima Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
- Dreyfus v. BadgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Graham v. ReedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
- Miller v. GrunskyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- People v. TraviesoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1942