Heath v. Wilson

California Supreme Court

Heath v. Wilson

139 Cal. 362

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 19, 1903

DocketS. F. No. 2109

StatusPublished

This text of 139 Cal. 362 (Heath v. Wilson) 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

Heath v. Wilson, 139 Cal. 362 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

When this case was in Department, the foregoing opinion was prepared. After further consideration, we are satisfied with and adopt the same, and are of the -opinion that for the reasons therein given the judgment of the lower court was right. It is therefore not necessary to -consider the contention of counsel for respondent that the latter had acquired a perfect title by adverse possession.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Shaw, J., Van Dyke, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.

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

McFARLAND, J.

When this case was in Department, the foregoing opinion was prepared. After further consideration, we are satisfied with and adopt the same, and are of the -opinion that for the reasons therein given the judgment of the lower court was right. It is therefore not necessary to -consider the contention of counsel for respondent that the latter had acquired a perfect title by adverse possession.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Shaw, J., Van Dyke, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 Cal. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heath-v-wilson-cal-1903.