Mansfield v. District Agricultural Ass'n Number Six
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County and from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion to amend the conclusions of law and enter a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Waldo M. York, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
This was an action brought to quiet title to three one-acre lots designated T, U, and Y of the Agricultural Park tract in the county of Los Angeles. William Ferguson intervened, but the findings and judgment of the court were against the intervener, and he has not appealed. The court found that defendant District Agricultural Association Number Six had no title to the land in controversy; that title was in the Sixth District Agricultural Association; that the Sixth District Agricultural Association had conveyed the land in controversy to plaintiff’s grantor, W. M. Bowen, but that its deeds…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Roberts v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Borland v. Nevada BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Western Massachusetts Insurance v. RikerMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
- Sixth District Agricultural Ass'n v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Hughes v. WashingtonIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Harry T. Von Eichelberger and Haig Mihram Terzian v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1958
- H.S. Crocker Co., Inc. v. McFaddinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Bruns v. Rennebohm Drug Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1989
- Sonday v. Dave Kohel Agency, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 2006
- Topzant v. KosheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.