Legal Opinion

Merritt v. Hill

California Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1894No. 18120PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

The substance of the complaint in this action is that while plaintiffs were owners and in possession of about eight sections of land in Trinity county (not alleged to have been inclosed), “defendants’ cattle and horses ran and trespassed upon said lands, ate up, injured, and destroyed the grass, hay, and verdure being and growing thereon,” to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of one thousand dollars. It is not alleged that the trespass was instigated by defendants, nor that defendants had notice thereof.

A demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that it • does not state a cause…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Logan v. GedneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Comerford v. DupuyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Hahn v. GarrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Blevins v. MullallyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
  2. Wigmore v. BuellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Vanderford v. WagnerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Kimple v. SchaferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
  5. Hardman v. KingWyoming Supreme Court · 1906

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API