Klumpke v. Henley
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County and from an order refusing a new trial. Geo. H. Buck, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The action was brought to quiet title to a tract of land in San Mateo County and, at the trial, on motion of plaintiff, was dismissed as to all the defendants except Barclay Henley who, in accordance with his claim, was found by the court to be the owner of an undivided one-third of the property.
The principles of law applied by the trial court and upon which respondent relies are, as substantially stated by him, the following: First: The plaintiff must rely exclusively on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of that of his adversary. Or, as is stated in Shroder v. Aden etc.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Sichler v. LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Tynan v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Miller v. LucoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Burns v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Wilkerson v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Weisberg v. LoughridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Beck v. WilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- McPhail v. NunesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Warden v. GriesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.