Legal Opinion

Andrus v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided May 29, 1901No. S.F. No. 1990PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

COOPER, C.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff and from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

The action was brought for the purpose of quieting plaintiff’s title to the lots described in the complaint, situated in the city of Alameda. The plaintiff relied on title by adverse possession. The court found that plaintiff’s testate, “ ever since the sixteenth day of April, A. D. 1885, and up to the sixth day of June, A. D. 1895, . . . has been and was in the exclusive, open, and notorious occupancy and possession of” the lands described in the complaint.

Defenda…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Webber v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Halleck v. MixerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Sheldon v. MullCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. McCreery v. EverdingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Valencia v. Shell Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Gartlan v. C. A. Hooper & Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  3. State v. PictonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1899
  4. Burrows v. BurrowsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Feigin v. KutchorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951

7 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