Kearney v. Pierson
HATTIE M. KEARNEY v. J. W. PIERSON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hall (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Hall
HALL, J.
This case is in all respects similar to the case of Hattie M. Kearney v. John Palmer et al., ante, p. 517, [123 Pac. 611], save that the action is one in ejectment and not *522to quiet title, and for the same reasons the judgment is affirmed.
Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on May 15, 1912.
Cites, in this corpus
- Kearney v. Palmer Civ. No. 1016. · 1912-03-15