Legal Opinion

Huling v. Seccombe

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 4, 1928No. Docket No. 3393PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMPSON (B. L.), J., pro tem.

-This is an appeal from a decree quieting title to a certain lot situated in Long Beach, California. Appellant contends that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence.

Much of the evidence was stipulated. The respective parties claim title through a common ancestor. The in question is an unimproved vacant lot in a suburb of Long Beach, which has never been used, inclosed, or cultivated. It was without buildings, fences, or street improvements. The only evidence tending to show adverse possession on the part of respondent or his predecessor in…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Learned v. CastleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. People v. OttoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Secret Valley Land Co. v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Los Angeles & Arizona Land Co. v. MarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Bateman v. KelloggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. West v. EvansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Turner v. MilsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  3. Norman v. SmedleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
  4. Spencer v. Harmon Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1965
  5. Wood v. DavidsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944

13 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