Chapman v. Polack

5 P. 232, 2 Cal. Unrep. 424
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 20, 1884
DocketNo. 8819
StatusPublished

This text of 5 P. 232 (Chapman v. Polack) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chapman v. Polack, 5 P. 232, 2 Cal. Unrep. 424 (Cal. 1884).

Opinion

ROSS, J.

Most, if not all, of the questions involved in this appeal are substantially determined by the cases entitled Chapman v. Polack, 58 Cal. 553, United States v. Chapman, 5 Saw. 528, Fed. Cas. No. 14,785, and Polack v. Gurnee, No. 8229, 66 Cal. 266, 5 Pac. 229.

We do not find any denial of the averment of the cross-complaint to the effect that the Geyser springs and hotel improvements are located on the N. E. % of section 13. It was therefore an admitted fact in the case, and being so, there was no impropriety in adding to the description of the property in the judgment the words “the same being known as the ‘Geyser Hotel property.’ ”

Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: McKee, J.; McKinstry, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Chapman v. Polack
58 Cal. 553 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
Polack v. Gurnee
5 P. 229 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
United States v. Chapman
25 F. Cas. 407 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 P. 232, 2 Cal. Unrep. 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-polack-cal-1884.