Mitchell v. Davis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of Merced county. The facts are stated in the opinion. The first instruction asked by defendant, and refused by the Court, is as follows: “ That plaintiff must have had the actual possession in himself, and not holding as agent for his principal; for if he was in possession as agent, the possession was that of the principal, and the agent could not bring this action in his own name.”
1Opinion of the CourtNorton, J.
This is an action brought under the act concerning forcible entries and unlawful detainers.
The plaintiff, for the purpose of proving himself in the possession of the premises upon which the forcible entry was claimed to have been made, introduced as a witness the Sheriff of the county, who produced a writ of restitution in a certain action between Charles B. Storer and Henry B. Davis, by which he was commanded to cause Davis to be removed from the premises in question, and Storer to have peaceable restitution of the same, and also his return on the writ, which, so far as respects the point in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kercheval v. AmblerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
- Yoder's Heirs v. EasleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Hastings v. FoxworthyNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- United States v. Richfield Oil Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 1951
- Mitchell v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Dye v. CraryNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1906
- Lowell v. Ball, Hutchings & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.