Legal Opinion
In Re Sackett
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 20, 1921No. Civ. No. 3595PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The foregoing cases were consolidated and tried as one case. Kate Barnard Morse, defendant in the one case and petitioner in the other, appeals from the "judgment and interlocutory decree" and from an order requiring her to sign and acknowledge a certain map and plat.
On November 10, 1916, application No. 6, in L. R. No. 112, was filed by Mrs. Morse. That was an application for the registration of her title to two parcels of land, being respectively, the south half and the north half of lot 1 in Howell's subdivision, in the county of Los Angeles, as per map recorded in book 23, page 92,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People ex rel. Schwartz v. TempleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Guar. Tr. & Sav. Bank v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Cooper v. BuxtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
3Cited by5 opinions
- People v. RussellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Petition of FurnessCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Galusha v. MeserveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Government of Guam v. CruzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- No. 88-2905Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989