Manning v. Franklin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
This is an action of unlawful detainer. The court finds the facts tending to show under what claim of right the defendant was in possession as follows: “That in the month of February, A. D. 1886, the house and lot of the defendant having been washed away by the Los Angeles River, that plaintiff, then residing upon the south half of lot 1, block V, of the Alviso tract, in the city of Los Angeles, represented to the defendant that he, plaintiff, was solitary, old, and infirm, and was liable at any time to attacks of sickness, and proposed to defendant that he, defendant, should erect a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Burlingame v. RowlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- McCarger v. RoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by14 opinions
- Wolfsen v. HathawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Schubert v. LoweCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Union Oil Co. v. ChandlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Straus v. North Hollywood Hospital, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Nork v. Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.