The Pacific Reporter, Volume 8West Publishing Company, 1886 - Law reports, digests, etc |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 14
... lines were so run upon the ground as to include that greater area. 2.
ADJOINING LAND-OWNERs—DIVISION FENCE–ESTOPPEL. Adjoining land-
owners who erect a division fence along their supposed boundary line, under an
agreement ...
... lines were so run upon the ground as to include that greater area. 2.
ADJOINING LAND-OWNERs—DIVISION FENCE–ESTOPPEL. Adjoining land-
owners who erect a division fence along their supposed boundary line, under an
agreement ...
Page 15
... the court was justified in saying that the north line of section 7 was only 40 and
not 43 chains north of its center. . Upon the questions of prescription and
estoppel, it is claimed for the appellant that the fences were built by the owners of
the ...
... the court was justified in saying that the north line of section 7 was only 40 and
not 43 chains north of its center. . Upon the questions of prescription and
estoppel, it is claimed for the appellant that the fences were built by the owners of
the ...
Page 16
Brown, that “where owners of adjacent parcels of land have occupied, adversely
to each other for more than five years, their respective tracks by a division line,
which each has recognized and acquiesced in as the true line during all of that ...
Brown, that “where owners of adjacent parcels of land have occupied, adversely
to each other for more than five years, their respective tracks by a division line,
which each has recognized and acquiesced in as the true line during all of that ...
Page 31
Here the ditch, and the water which it conveyed, were not the property of the
owners ... ordinarily pass with a conveyance of the mill, but, in order to do so, it
must belong to the mill,—must be the property of the owner thereof, and not of
another.
Here the ditch, and the water which it conveyed, were not the property of the
owners ... ordinarily pass with a conveyance of the mill, but, in order to do so, it
must belong to the mill,—must be the property of the owner thereof, and not of
another.
Page 49
The answer admits that Jose R. Arguello was in his life-time, and up to the
fourteenth day of September, 1876, the owner in fee of the premises, but alleges
that on that day he sold and conveyed said premises to the defendant for the ...
The answer admits that Jose R. Arguello was in his life-time, and up to the
fourteenth day of September, 1876, the owner in fee of the premises, but alleges
that on that day he sold and conveyed said premises to the defendant for the ...
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
action affirmed agent alleged allowed amount answer appeal application assignment attachment attorney authority bond cause charge claim Code complaint concur consideration constitute construction contract corporation court damages deed defendant denied district court duty effect election entered entitled error evidence execution fact favor filed follows further give given ground held injury instruction intent interest issued judgment jury Kansas land limitations ment mortgage motion N. W. Rep necessary negligence notice objection offered opinion Osage county owner paid party payment person petition plaintiff possession present proceedings proper prove purchase question railroad company reason received record recover referred refused rendered respondent reversed road rule statute sufficient sustained taken term testimony thereof tion trial verdict witness
Bibliographic information
| Title | The Pacific Reporter, Volume 8 National reporter system: State series The Pacific Reporter, California. Superior Courts |
| Contributors | California. Supreme Court, Colorado. Supreme Court, Kansas. Supreme Court, Oregon. Supreme Court, Nevada. Supreme Court, Idaho. Supreme Court, Montana. Supreme Court, Washington Territory. Supreme Court, Washington (State). Supreme Court, Wyoming. Supreme Court, Utah. Supreme Court, West Publishing Company, New Mexico. Supreme Court, Oklahoma. Supreme Court, Colorado. Court of Appeals, Kansas. Court of Appeals, Oklahoma. Criminal Court of Appeals, California. District Courts of Appeal |
| Publisher | West Publishing Company, 1886 |
| Original from | University of Minnesota |
| Digitized | 14 Jul 2014 |
| Export Citation | BiBTeX EndNote RefMan |