Articoli correlati a A Table of Cases in California: As Affirmed, Overruled,...
A Table of Cases in California: As Affirmed, Overruled, Modified, Commented Upon, or Altered by Statutory Enactment Alphabetically Arranged - Brossura
Sinossi
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1860. Excerpt: ... Kelsey v. Dunlap, 7 Cal. 160, affirmed in Henderson v. Grewell, 8 Cal. 584, as to the requisite of acknowledgment to a conveyance, but abrogated by the statute of 1860, pp. 179, 357. Kent v. Laffan, 2 Cal. 595, affirmed in McMillan v. Richards, 9 Gal. 412, as to the statutory right of redemption. Kilburn v. Ritchie, 2 Cal. 145, affirmed in Morgan v. Hugg, 5 Cal. 410, that errors which are relied on must be affirmatively shown on appeal. Kiler v. Kimball, 10 Cal. 267, affirmed in Martin v. Travers, 12 Cal. 245; and in McGarrity v. Byington, 12 Cal. 429, that errors which are relied on must be affirmatively shown on appeal. King v. Hall, 5 Cal. 82, referred to in Smith v. Sparrow, July T. 1859, relative to actions brought by adverse parties to settle controversies. Knight v. Fair, 9 Cal. 117, affirmed in McMillan v. Richards, 9 Cal. 413, as to the statutory right of redemption. Knowles v. Inches, 12 Cal. 212, affirmed in Barrett v. Tewksbury, April T. 1860, relative to statements on appeal not setting forth the errors relied on. Kohler v. Smith, 2 Cal. 597, affirmed in Guy v. Franklin, 5 Cal. 417, as to interest on contracts. Kramer v. Revalk, 8 Cal. 74, affirmed in Cook v. Klink, 8 Cal. 353, relative to the homestead, but abrogated by the statute of 1860, p. 311. Ladd v. Stevenson, 1 Cal. 18, referred to in Piercy v. Sabin, 10 Cal. 30, that new matter must be set up in the answer. Laffan v. Naglee, 9 Cal. 662, referred to in Hitchcock v. Page, Oct. T. 1859, as being different in the facts. Landecker v. Houghtaling, 7 Cal. 391, affirmed in Visher v. Webster, 8 Cal. 113, as to the fraudulent intent of the parties. Ledley v. Hays, 1 Cal. 160, affirmed in Goodwin v. Garr, 8 Cal. 617, that possession is prima facie evidence of ownership; and in Paige v. O'Neal,...
Le informazioni nella sezione "Riassunto" possono far riferimento a edizioni diverse di questo titolo.
(nessuna copia disponibile)
Cerca: Inserisci un desiderataNon riesci a trovare il libro che stai cercando? Continueremo a cercarlo per te. Se uno dei nostri librai lo aggiunge ad AbeBooks, ti invieremo una notifica!
Inserisci un desiderata
