Pierce v. Felter
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- German-American Sav. Bank v. Gollmer (Cal. 1909)
- Valencia v. VF Outdoor, LLC (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2022)
- Schipper v. Penkalski (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
- Langstaff v. Mitchell (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- Berry v. Howard (S.D. 1910)
- Smith Oyster Co. v. Darbee & Immel Oyster & Land Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1906)
- Shields v. Johnson (Idaho 1904)
- Pollock Mining & Milling Co. v. Davenport (Mont. 1904)
- Blakemore v. Roberts (N.D. 1903)
- Rincon Water & Power Co. v. Anaheim Union Water Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California 1902)
- Pennie v. Hildreth (Cal. 1889)
- McKinnie v. Shaffer (Cal. 1888)
- Wisconsin Central Railroad v. Wisconsin River Land Co. (Wis. 1888)
- Mora v. Le Roy (Cal. 1881)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The only question presented in this case is whether the owner of an estate or interest in land, less than an estate in fee, can maintain an action for the determination of an adverse claim made by another person. We think that he can. The Code of Civil Procedure (sec. 738) provides, in terms, that an action may be brought by any person against another who claims an estate or interest in real property adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim.
We are unable to see any reason why the benefit of this statute, remedial in its character, should be confined to estates in fee, when the words employed by the Legislature embrace every interest or estate in lands of which the law takes cognizance.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.