White

White v. Clarke

Good Law
111 Cal. 425·1896 Cal. LEXIS 600·44 P. 164
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 5, 1896S. F. No. 224California789 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

This proceeding purports to have been instituted in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, under section 1138 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of obtaining a judg *426 ment of the court upon an agreed case. The document upon which the judgment was sought is prefaced by the statement: “ The plaintiff and the defendant agree to submit this controversy without action, and present the following facts”; and, after setting forth certain facts, concludes: “ Wherefore, the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, agrees to submit this controversy, without action, upon the foregoing statement. Judgment of the court,is respectfully prayed.” It is stated in the “agreed case” that the defendant has acquired title to certain lands in San Francisco which are not within the boundaries of the patent issued to the city by the United States under a patent issued by the governor of the state January 24, 1881, and, as impairing the effect of this fact and the sufficiency of the title thus acquired, is the statement: “ That on January 12,1895, the plaintiff being qualified to claim a homestead under section 2289 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, duly claimed…

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.