Bell v. Brigance
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.
The plaintiff brought an action in the ordinary form to quiet title to certain real property. The defendant answered, claiming title in himself. A decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff. Thereupon the defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied by operation of law, the motion not having been determined within ■two months after service of notice of the entry of judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 660.) An appeal to this court was then taken by the defendant, and the matter now comes before us on motion of the plaintiff and respondent to affirm the judgment of the trial court…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Waymire v. California Trona Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Totten v. BarlowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- In Re Estate of BarneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
- White v. HendleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Williams v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jeffords v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Martin v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
- In Re SilvaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Bartholomew v. CrossCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.