Legal Opinion

Glassell v. Hansen

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1906No. Sac. No. 1370PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. George A. Lament, Frank R. Devlin, and McNutt & Hannon, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

At the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiffs were—and for a great many years prior thereto they and their predecessors in interest had been—the owners in fee of a tract of land in Solano County known generally as the Toland ranch, and having as its eastern boundary what at the time of the inception of their title, and for many years after, was the western bank of the Sacramento River. After plaintiffs had become the owners of the Toland ranch the Sacramento River in front of said ranch commenced to fill up with alluvial deposits, which increased in size from year to year…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Falkner v. HendyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Glassell v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Weightman v. HadleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  2. LoBue v. State ex rel. Department of HighwaysNevada Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Estate of WearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Rossi v. CaireCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  5. Mutual Orange Distributors v. Agricultural Prorate CommissionDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1940

6 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