McFadden v. Wallace
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. Suit to recover land. After the complaint was filed, and before answer, the interest of the defendant in. the land in controversy was sold by the Sheriff, under an execution against him, to John McHugh and James Brennan, who, upon regular motion, and under exception by plaintiff, were substituted by the Court as defendants in the action, in place of James Wallace, and the answer was…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth District, City and County of San Francisco. Suit to recover land. After the complaint was filed, and before answer, the interest of the defendant in. the land in controversy was sold by the Sheriff, under an execution against him, to John McHugh and James Brennan, who, upon regular motion, and under exception by plaintiff, were substituted by the Court as defendants in the action, in place of James Wallace, and the answer was filed, and the defense conducted in their names, and on their behalf. At the trial, after plaintiff had exhausted his…
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, C. J.
This is an action commenced on the 30th of December, 1864, to recover land of which defendant, Wallace, had been in the possession and occupation some fourteen years—he having entered upon the land in the fall of 1850, or spring of 1851, and erected buildings and commenced residing thereon as early as the spring of 1851. The plaintiff claims by prior possession, and under the Van Hess Ordinance, by virtue of such prior possession. He also claims that Wallace, after his entry, upon plaintiff’s claiming the land, ver*57bally agreed to recognize his right, hold, as tenant of the plaintiff, for…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Sharp v. BlankenshipCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885