McCreery v. Duane

California Supreme Court

McCreery v. Duane

52 Cal. 293, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 99

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1877

DocketNo. 5393

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Cal. 293 (McCreery v. Duane) 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

McCreery v. Duane, 52 Cal. 293, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 99 (Cal. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court :

1. The objections to the introduction in evidence' of the deed from the city to McCreery were properly overruled. (McCreery v. Sawyer, ante, p. 257.)

2. The only other point relied on by the appellant arises upon^ the following portion of the bill of exceptions: “ And the defendant John Duane then offered to prove that neither the plaintiff nor his grantor was in the bona fide possession of the said land on the 8th day of March, 1866, nor any one for them, which evidence was offered for the purpose of attacking said deed from the city; but said defendant did not propose or offer to prove in connection with said offer that he, said Duane, had complied with the terms and conditions of said ordinances or acts of the Legislature; but the evidence so offered was excluded by the Court.”

Upon the views just announced in McCreery v. Sawyer, supra, this ruling was correct.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

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

By the Court :

1. The objections to the introduction in evidence' of the deed from the city to McCreery were properly overruled. (McCreery v. Sawyer, ante, p. 257.)

2. The only other point relied on by the appellant arises upon^ the following portion of the bill of exceptions: “ And the defendant John Duane then offered to prove that neither the plaintiff nor his grantor was in the bona fide possession of the said land on the 8th day of March, 1866, nor any one for them, which evidence was offered for the purpose of attacking said deed from the city; but said defendant did not propose or offer to prove in connection with said offer that he, said Duane, had complied with the terms and conditions of said ordinances or acts of the Legislature; but the evidence so offered was excluded by the Court.”

Upon the views just announced in McCreery v. Sawyer, supra, this ruling was correct.

Judgment and order affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Cal. 293, 1877 Cal. LEXIS 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccreery-v-duane-cal-1877.