Legal Opinion
Riddell v. Harrell
California Supreme Court
Decided November 3, 1886No. 11363PublishedCited by 13 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The action was brought to set aside a judgment for costs and an execution sale thereunder. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.
The court below sustained the defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, which is as follows:—
“The plaintiff complains and alleges:—
“ 1. That Speer Biddell, his brother, lately deceased, was during his life-time the owner in fee of certain real estate situate, lying, and being in the county of Tulare, and state of California, particularly described as follows: South half of section 20, township 17 south, range 24 east; north half of south half, and north half of south half of south half of section 21, township 17 south, range 24 east; all of section 29, township 17 south, range 24 east; south…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chapin & Mastick v. BroderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by13 opinions
- Williams v. HavensIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
- Bechtel v. WierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Wise v. HoganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hotchkiss v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Coast Electric Service, Inc. v. JensenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.