Pennybecker v. McDougal
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Colusa County. • The plaintiff entered one hundred and sixty acres of land as a preemptioner, and the thirty acres was a part of it. The complaint alleged that the fence was worth three hundred and sixty dollars, and the building forty dollars. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
This is an action to recover a small frame building, and-certain fencing materials, alleged to have been the property and in the possession of the plaintiff, and to have been wrongfully removed, and to be unlawfully detained by the defendants. The answer—1st, denies all the allegations of the complaint; 2d, the plaintiff’s title; and avers that the title and right of possession are in the defendants; 3d, avers that without the fault of the defendants, the property has been consumed by fire. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.
It…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Collins v. BartlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Sands v. PfeifferCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
3Cited by22 opinions
- Stevinson v. JoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Gosliner v. BrionesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Miller v. WaddinghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Fisher v. PenningtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- County of Los Angeles v. Signal Realty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.