Legal Opinion

McGary v. Hastings

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 2,267PublishedCited by 30 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth District, City and County of San Francisco. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This is an action upon a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The complaint avers-that on the 13th of August, A. D. 1856, the defendant, for the consideration of $9,000, conveyed to *363plaintiff and certain other parties a certain tract of land situate in Solano County. In the deed executed by defendant there was the following covenant:

“ And the said Daniel N. Hastings and his heirs, the said premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of said parties of the second part, and their heirs and assigns, and against the said party of the first part, his heirs, and against all and every person and persons…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Noonan v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
  2. Dupuy v. RoebuckSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
  3. Brady v. SpurckIllinois Supreme Court · 1861
  4. Waldron v. M'CartyNew York Supreme Court · 1808
  5. Fowler v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Copeland v. McAdorySupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
  2. Standard Livestock Co. v. PentzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. West Coast Manufacturing & Investment Co. v. West Coast Improvement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Green v. IrvingMississippi Supreme Court · 1877
  5. McAlester v. LandersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

25 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