Legal Opinion

Hendershott v. Shipman

California Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1951No. L. A. 21227PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

The plaintiffs sued to quiet title to a lot in the city of Los Angeles. The defendants Shipman answered and denied the validity of the plaintiff’s alleged title. They admitted a claim of ownership in themselves. The judgment was that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the lot. The defendants appealed because the judgment also declared that the plaintiffs had a valid and subsisting lien on the property.

The appeal is on the judgment roll which discloses the following:

The plaintiffs commenced proceedings to foreclose a street improvement bond issued August 31, 1928, pursuant to the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Sears v. RuleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Holland v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Peterson v. GibbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  5. Burns v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Marks v. WhitneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Shilts v. YoungAlaska Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Elbert, Ltd. v. ClareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Hendershott v. ShipmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Baucum v. LeBaronCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

3 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