Davis v. Perley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. All the defendants disclaimed except D. W. Perley, and he disclaimed as to that portion of the demanded premises lying east of a fence called the “middle fence.” The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
This is an action of ejectment to recover the possession of a tract of land situated within the charter lines of 1851 of the City of San Francisco. The verdict and judgment having been rendered for the plaintiffs, and the motion for a new trial filed by defendant Perley having been denied, he appeals from the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
The plaintiffs directed their efforts to the establishment of two principal propositions: First—That their grantors had prior possession of the premises; and, Second—That they had such an actual possession of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Richardson v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Hicks v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Keane v. CannovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Peter v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- St. John v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Gerhard v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Owsley v. MatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Judson v. MalloyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Polack v. McGrathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Sowles v. MinotSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.