Chipman v. Emeric
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. This was a proceeding in forcible detainer, commenced before a Justice of the Peace, in the township and county of Contra Costa.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District. This was a proceeding in forcible detainer, commenced before a Justice of the Peace, in the township and county of Contra Costa. The plaintiffs say, that on the 21st February, 1851, Antonia Maria Peralta, leased to Jose Dessassier and Jose Maria Payot, the tract of land known as the Encinal San Antonio, part of the Ranch known as the Ranch San Antonio, and containing about 3000 acres; that about the-day of June, 1851, the said Des- sassier sold his interest in said lease, to the above-named defendant Emeric, and J. M. Payot, and…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Murray, Chief Justice, concurred.
The appellants say that the estate of the defendant (a term for years) is forfeited, for two reasons: first, for the non-payment of rent; 2d, for the commission of waste.
At common law, there was no forfeiture upon either of these grounds. It was only by the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Ed. 1, that the remedy of forfeiture was given for waste, and it was then expressly confined to the place wherein the waste was committed. 2 Black. 283. Our statute confines the remedy to the recovery of treble damages. Laws, 566, 52, 59.
In reference to the first point, I can come…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pegg v. DavisIndiana Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by9 opinions
- Hicks v. BeachamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Baugh v. Consumers Associates, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- J. B. Hill Co. v. PinqueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Gage v. BatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Johnson v. SanchesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.