Legal Opinion

Janke v. McMahon

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 25, 1913No. Civ. No. 1065PublishedCited by 28 opinions

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco refusing a new trial. James M. Troutt, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

The action is to recover the possession of a narrow strip of land, nearly three feet in width and forty feet in depth, and to quiet plaintiff’s title thereto. The appeal is from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. It is admitted by appellant that the record title is in respondent but its normal effect is sought to be obviated by the claim of adverse possession. Plerein it is the contention that “nowhere does it appear that the plaintiff or her predecessors or any one of them had actual physical possession or ever occupied the disputed strip of land, the surface of the soil;…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Grube v. WellsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
  2. Arrington v. LiscomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Cannon v. StockmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Southern Pac. R.R. v. DufourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Clapp v. ChurchillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Crockett Land & Cattle Co.California Court of Appeal · 1924
  2. Martin v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Dauberman v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Myrick v. PeetMontana Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Rude v. MarshallMontana Supreme Court · 1917

23 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