Burk

Burk v. Howe

Good Law
171 Cal. 242·1915 Cal. LEXIS 613·152 P. 434
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 11, 1915S. F. No. 6469.California1,459 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Appeals from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial in each of three separate cases are here presented. For the purposes of the trial the cases were consolidated. They are numbered and entitled in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco as follows: Burk et al. v. Howe et al., No. 15,263; Burk v. Howe et al., No. 23,685, both involving the east half of the lot in controversy, and Robins et al. v. Howe et al., No. 16,430, involving the west half of said lot. They involve title to fifty vara lot number 428, situate in San Francisco, fronting on the south side of North Point Street and lying between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets. The facts affecting the title are the same in all the cases and they are submitted on the same argument.

The plaintiffs sued to quiet title to this lot. The answers of the defendants deny the allegations of the complaints as to ownership in fee by the plaintiffs, and deny the allegation that the defendants claim an interest in the property and that said claim is without right. .The findings sustain the allegations of the complaint;

The plaintiffs established their title to the lot under a grant from John W. Geary, alcalde of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.