Legal Opinion

Landregan v. Peppin

California Supreme Court

Decided May 5, 1892No. 14407PublishedCited by 26 opinions

Appeal from an order of'the Superior Court of Plumas County for the issuance of a writ of possession. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action brought under the provisions of section 788 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of quieting title to certain quartz mines situated in Plumas County. The complaint is in the usual form, and the answer denies the allegations thereof except as to the adverse claim, and further alleges that at and for a long time prior to the commencement of the action, defendant was the owner of, in the possession, and entitled to the possession of all of said real estate. The court found all the allegations of the complaint to be true, and a decree was entered quieting plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Donahue v. MeisterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Merritt v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  3. Kercheval v. AmblerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
  4. Ritchie v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
  5. Montgomery v. ByersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Adams v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Shields v. JohnsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Hyatt v. ColkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  4. Reiner v. SchroederCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Curtis v. UptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917

21 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