Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Yoakum

California Supreme Court

Decided March 31, 1892No. 14289PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order refusing a new trial- The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action to quiet title. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and order denying her motion *228for a new trial. Respondents are successors in interest of one McKenna. At the time McKenna prepared his application to purchase the land involved in this litigation from the state, and prior to the filing of such application, he remised, released, and quitclaimed his interest in the property to appellant by deed duly executed and acknowledged. The habendum clause in said deed was as follows: “ To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Morrison v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Montgomery v. SturdivantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Cadierque v. DuranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  4. People v. BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Cooper v. SeligCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  3. E. E. McCalla Co. v. SleeperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Brandtjen & Kluge v. FincherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  5. Bell v. BellIdaho Supreme Court · 1908

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API