Kirsch v. Brigard
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was ejectment. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
The counsel for defendant insists that although the plaintiffs were in the actual possession and occupation of the demanded premises at the time of the entry and ouster by the clefendent, their possession was not of that kind which would enable them to maintain an action of ejectment against any one who might enter upon the premises by force and violence. And this insistence is based upon certain allegations in the complaint to the effect that one Naphtaly ivas at the time of the commencement of the action, and for more than five years prior thereto had been, the owner, and, by himself and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Pico v. PicoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Kile v. TubbsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Foscalina v. DoyleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by5 opinions
- Harris v. SeidellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Estate of YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Lancaster v. MaxwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Kirsch v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Hyde v. St. ClairCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906