Vance v. Anderson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County and from an order denying a new trial. G-. W. Hunter, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Searls, C.
Action of ejectment to recover a lot of land in the city of Eureka, Humboldt county. Plaintiff had. judgment, from which judgment, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.
The first point made by appellant for reversal is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. To properly present the question thus raised, it is necessary to quote from the complaint and answer, and to state some facts bearing upon the case. tThe complaint is in part as follows:
“ That on the 1st of May, 1891, she [the plaintiff] was seised in…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Pierce v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Campbell v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Cohen v. KnoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Locke v. MoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Kidder v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Beeler v. American Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Marr v. Postal Union Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Abner Doble Co. v. Keystone Consol. Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904
- Donegan v. HoustonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Harris v. SeidellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.