Unruh v. Lummer

142 P. 918, 25 Cal. App. 798, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 275
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJuly 3, 1914
DocketCiv. No. 1407.
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 142 P. 918 (Unruh v. Lummer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Unruh v. Lummer, 142 P. 918, 25 Cal. App. 798, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Opinion

SHAW, J.

The above entitled actions grew out of the fact that defendant therein claimed ownership by adverse user to certain lands the title to which was involved in the case of Lummer v. Unruh et al., (Civ. No. 1581), ante, p. 97, [142 Pac. 914], an opinion in which on appeal to this court was this day filed, affirming a judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of defendants therein.

*799 During the trial of said ease of Lummer v. TJnruh, it was stipulated in open court by the attorneys for the respective parties that the above entitled actions should abide and be controlled by the determination of the court in said case of Lummer v. TJnruh, and that upon judgment being rendered in said last mentioned case, judgment in each of the above entitled actions should, without trial, be rendered therein in accordance with said decision. The court having rendered a judgment in favor of defendants in the Lummer-Unruh case, likewise, pursuant to said stipulation, rendered judgments in favor of plaintiffs in each of the above entitled actions, from which, and orders denying his motions for new trial, the defendant has appealed. No briefs are filed herein by any of the parties to said actions, it being understood and agreed that said appeals shall be disposed of by this court in accordance with its decision in the case of Liommer v. TJnruh, above referred to.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgments and orders denying defendant’s motion for new trial in each of the above entitled cases be and the same are hereby affirmed.

Conrey, P. J., and James, J., concurred.

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

Related

Normand ex rel. Normand v. Ray
758 P.2d 296 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1988)
NORMAND BY AND THROUGH NORMAND v. Ray
758 P.2d 296 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1988)
Allgood v. Orason
511 P.2d 746 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1973)
Tuft v. Tuft
483 P.2d 935 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1971)
McDonald v. Burchard
357 S.W.2d 583 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Hoefer v. Hoefer
353 P.2d 1066 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1960)
Cantrell v. Cantrell
106 S.E.2d 768 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1958)
Smith v. South
283 P.2d 1073 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1955)
Bassett v. Bassett
250 P.2d 487 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1952)
Helton v. Crawley
41 N.W.2d 60 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1950)
Lynn v. Wright
42 So. 2d 484 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
Boone v. Boone
150 F.2d 153 (D.C. Circuit, 1945)
Albright v. Albright
115 P.2d 59 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
Goldsmith v. Salkey
112 S.W.2d 165 (Texas Supreme Court, 1938)
Evens v. Keller
6 P.2d 200 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1931)
People ex rel. Stockham v. Schaedel
250 Ill. App. 409 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1928)
Duryea v. Duryea
269 P. 987 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1928)
Stapler v. Leamons
132 S.E. 507 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1926)
Brandon v. Brandon
115 S.E. 115 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Green v. McDowell
242 S.W. 168 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
142 P. 918, 25 Cal. App. 798, 1914 Cal. App. LEXIS 275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unruh-v-lummer-calctapp-1914.