Bequette v. Caulfield
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. Ejectment. The defendant, in the year 1850, was in possession of the lot, which was situated in the City of Sacramento. One R. A. Pearis, in August of that year, commenced proceedings before a Justice of the Peace, to get possession of the lot.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District. Ejectment. The defendant, in the year 1850, was in possession of the lot, which was situated in the City of Sacramento. One R. A. Pearis, in August of that year, commenced proceedings before a Justice of the Peace, to get possession of the lot. Pending the action, the defendant was put in prison for participation in the squatter riots; and while there, the defendant said to Pearis, that he wanted to have nothing more to do with the property, and that Pearis might take possession of it, which Pearis accordingly did, and afterwards sold to Beirne; and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Ch, J. Murray concurred.
We have often held, that possession is evidence [279] of title; but *itis equally true, that possession gives a right of action against a mere trespasser, even where title may be shown to exist in another. So, where a party can show nothing but a prior possession, that reliance may fail, if it be shown that he voluntarily abandoned his possession without the purpose of returning.
In this case, Caulfield’s first claim of possession was answered by the allegation of abandonment, and the jury found against him. Then his present possession is that of a trespasser, if…
2Cited by9 opinions
- House v. ReavisTexas Supreme Court · 1896
- Richardson v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Richardson v. Houston Oil Co. of TexasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Stephens v. MansfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Hubbard v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.