Muir v. Galloway
California Supreme Court
Appeal by defendants from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. SULLIVAN, J. Action in ejectment by plaintiff as tenant in common to be let into the possession with the defendants of a lot of land in the City and County of San Francisco. The following are the facts: It was conceded that Joseph Galloway, on the twentieth of November, 1852, was seised in fee of the demanded premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from the judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. SULLIVAN, J. Action in ejectment by plaintiff as tenant in common to be let into the possession with the defendants of a lot of land in the City and County of San Francisco. The following are the facts: It was conceded that Joseph Galloway, on the twentieth of November, 1852, was seised in fee of the demanded premises. On that day he conveyed them to William M. Muir, who, on the twenty-second day of November, 1852, conveyed them to his…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court:
1. The orders of the Judge did not extend the time for pre*506paring and serving statement “more than thirty days.” (C. C. P. 1,054.) The last day of the period of extension fixed by one of the orders being Sunday, it should be “ excluded.” (CF. C. P. 12.) That is to say, it is not. to be computed as any portion of the time granted by the order, but is a supplementary day superadded by law.
2. The acknowledgment by Mrs. Jane T. Galloway of the execution of her deed of March 13,1854, is in words and figures following:
“ State of California, ) City and County of San Francisco, j ss"
“ On…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Frassi v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Johnston v. New Omaha Thomson-Houston Electric Light Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Reay v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893