Brandt v. Phillippi
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
Ejectment for a section of land in Kern County:
Defense that, although plaintiff was the owner of the land in fee, he was not entitled to the possession at the time of the commencement of this action (February 10. 1888), for the reason that he had leased the land some two weeks before to Tyler and Brother for the term of one year. It appears that plaintiff, who was a non-resident of this state, executed a lease of the land to Tyler and Brother, on January 26, 1888, for the term of one year, but never gave them possession under the lease. When they went to take possession, they…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Austin v. Huntsville Coal & Mining Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Skaggs v. EmersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
- Camarillo v. FenlonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Dengler v. MichelssenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- Automobile, Truck, Tractor & Implement Co. v. SalladayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Rispin v. Midnight Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1923
- Vatuone v. CannobioCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906