Legal Opinion

Peixouto v. Peixouto

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 25, 1919No. Civ. No. 2759PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, P. J.

This action was brought to quiet title to certain land in the county of Alameda. The defendant, F. A. Peixouto, filed an answer and cross-complaint in which he set up an oral contract between the plaintiff’s grantor and himself by which the plaintiff’s grantor agreed to convey to defendant a small portion of the land to which plaintiff sought to quiet his title. The facts set up in the answer and cross-complaint are substantially as follows: That the plaintiff and defendant F. A. Peixouto are brothers; that Frank A. Peixouto, Sr., is the father of the plaintiff and said de fendant; that in.…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Love v. WatkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Luco v. De ToroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Fleishman v. WoodsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Scadden Flat Gold Mining Co. v. ScaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Lakin v. Sierra Buttes Gold Min. Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Berniker v. BernikerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Stoll v. SelanderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Faria v. BettencourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Green v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Young v. ReedMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1978

4 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