Gregory v. Gregory
Citations
- 102 Cal. 50
- 36 P. 364
- 1894 Cal. LEXIS 599
Syllabus
<p>Appeal—Stay op Proceedings—Nonappealable Order—New Trial. An appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment for want of finding of fact to support it, which is dismissed by the court upon the ground that the order appealed from was not an appealable order, could not operate to stay proceedings in the court below, nor deprive the court of power to hear and deny a motion for a new trial.</p> <p>Id.—Findings—Agreed Statement.—-Findings are not required upon facts about which there is no dispute, and none are necessary where an agreed statement covers all the facts in the case.</p> <p>Id.—New Trial—Facts Agreed.—A new trial is a re-examination of an issue of fact in the same court, and where all the facts are agreed upon, there is no issue of fact to be re-examined, and no ground for a new trial.</p> <p>Id.—Statement—Absence op Specification.—Where there are no specifications of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision or of errors of law occurring at the trial, a new trial is properly denied.</p> <p>Id.—Recitals op Judgment—Agreed Statement—Review Upon Appeal. Where the judgment recites that the cause was decided upon an agreed statement of all the facts, such agreed statement may be considered upon appeal, whether it constitutes a part of the judgment-roll or not.</p> <p>Tenancy in Common.—Possession in Severalty—Advbp.se Possession— Statute op Limitations.—Tenants in common who have entered into the actual possession in severalty of parcels of the land respectively claimed by them, under claim and color of title, and who, with their predecessors in interest, have maintained possession and exercised acts of ownership openly and notoriously,claiming the same adversely to other cotenants who were of age, and to all the world, and paying all taxes assessed thereon for more than five years prior to the commencement of an action against them, thereby acquire a title by prescription under the statute of limitations.</p> <p>Id.—Notice to Cotena
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- construing § 946 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California corresponding to § 297 of our Code
- interpretando el art. 946 del Código de Enjuiciamiento Civil de California correspondiente al 297 del nuestro
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Cited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- F.People v. MonierCalifornia Supreme Court· 2017-11-27· cited 142×
- Carney v. SimmondsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1957-09-17· cited 89×
- Foley v. FoleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-02-04· cited 73×
- Jacuzzi v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.California Court of Appeal· 1966-06-22· cited 33×
- McMenomy v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-12-17· cited 25×
- Scramlin v. WarnerWashington Supreme Court· 1966-07-07· cited 15×
- Davis v. TaliaferroCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-07-11· cited 14×
- Davis v. State Board of OptometryCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1939-11-10· cited 11×
- Harniska v. DolphNinth Circuit· 1904-10-03· cited 11×
- Potter v. TalkingtonIdaho Supreme Court· 1897-05-18· cited 10×
- Satariano v. GallettoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1944-11-17· cited 8×
- Zolezzi v. MichelisCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1948-07-21· cited 8×
- Deere & Webber Co. v. HinckleySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1906-01-10· cited 8×
- Schipper v. PenkalskiCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1941-07-11· cited 5×
- Brown v. BrownSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1900-02-07· cited 4×
- Pahlka v. McCormickCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1954-03-10· cited 3×
- Brind v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-11-29· cited 2×
- Miller & Lux v. BatzCalifornia Supreme Court· 1900-06-15· cited 2×
- Vélez v. DoeSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1956-09-05· cited 2×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Himmelman v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-05-08· cited 48×
- Murphy v. BennettCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-02-19· cited 37×
- Senter v. SenterCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-09-13· cited 21×
- Dyer v. BroganCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-07-13· cited 15×
- Rogers v. DuffCalifornia Supreme Court· 1892-12-20· cited 14×
- Taylor v. Central Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-10-29· cited 12×
- In re the Estate of GriderCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-12-02· cited 11×
- Pomeroy v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-04-08· cited 5×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.