Murphy v. Sumner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
This is an action to recover seventy-seven acres of land, being lots 1, 2, and 3, section 18, township 30 south, range 14 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian. Plaintiff recovered judgment, and defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The land was twice surveyed under the direction of the United States surveyor-general for California, and each survey was duly approved by that officer, and the plat placed on file in the United States land-office.
*318The first survey was made and approved in 1868, and it was afterward found that the lines actually…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hodapp v. SharpCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by9 opinions
- Goodwin v. McCabeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Harris v. Minnesota Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Greene Gold-Silver Co. v. SilbertCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Kehrlein-Swinerton Construction Co. v. RapkenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Ex parte Bithorn Vda. de BenítezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.