Haese v. Heitzeg
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
After judgment in favor of the plaintiff the court below granted the motion of defendant Heitzeg for a new trial. From the order granting this motion the plaintiff now appeals.
The action was one to quiet title to a quarter section of land in Tulare County. The defendant Heitzeg (whom we shall designate herein as the defendant), answered, admitting that plaintiff had been the owner of the premises prior to June, 1900, but claiming that he, the defendant, had succeeded to such title by virtue of two sales, (a) for non-payment of state and county taxes; and (b) for non-payment of an assessment…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Tulare Irrigation District v. ShepardSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
- In the Matters of HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Windhaus v. BootzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Tuohy v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Galvin v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Palmer v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Capital National Bank v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- Grand v. GriesingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Sublett v. Henry's Turk & Taylor LunchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Harris v. Spinali Auto Sales, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.