Legal Opinion

Burgess v. Rice

California Supreme Court

Decided January 27, 1888No. 12127PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Trinity County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.

Ejectment. The property in controversy is described as the east one half of section 16, township 3 south, range 6 east, H. B. and M. The plaintiff, while in the occupation of the lands, on October 15, 1875, filed an application to purchase from the state. In accordance with his application, proof, and payment, a patent was issued to him for the lands in his own name, August 28, 1885. In his answer the defendant denied that the plaintiff was the sole owner of the property; and in his cross-complaint alleged that the land described in the complaint is a part of a tract of land known as the…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. RiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  2. Mayagüez Shipping Terminal, Inc. v. TiradoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1940
  3. Mayagüez Shipping Terminal, Inc. v. TiradoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API