Legal Opinion

Hicks v. Herring

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from the Sixth District. For facts see opinion. Plaintiff appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.

Cope, J. concurring.

This is an action to recover damages for waste committed upon the real property of the plaintiff, pending an action of forcible entry and detainer brought by him against the defendant. In this latter action, the plaintiff obtained judgment for the restitution of the premises, and for damages prior to its commencement, and also for the rents and profits for the period intermediate the commencement and the trial; but he neither claimed, or attempted to prove any damages for waste committed during that period. The present action is for such waste, which consisted in the…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Forrester v. CookUtah Supreme Court · 1930
  2. San Francisco & Suburban Home Building Society v. LeonardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  3. City of Oklahoma City v. Hill Bros.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
  4. Harris v. BissellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Warburton v. DobleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API