Preston v. Kehoe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from County Court. The complaint avers that “ defendants forcibly and unlawfully and with strong hand entered,” etc.; and that “ defendants, since said unlawful entry, and since the first day of June, 1857, have continued forcibly and unlawfully, and with strong hand to hold and keep possession so unlawfully obtained as aforesaid,” etc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from County Court. The complaint avers that “ defendants forcibly and unlawfully and with strong hand entered,” etc.; and that “ defendants, since said unlawful entry, and since the first day of June, 1857, have continued forcibly and unlawfully, and with strong hand to hold and keep possession so unlawfully obtained as aforesaid,” etc. The answer denies the allegations of the complaint and avers the premises to be public land, and not in the possession of any one when defendants entered. Suit was for six hundred and sixty-seven acres of land. Plaintiff lived at a place called…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.
This was a proceeding of forcible entry and detainer for a tract of agricultural land in Marin county.
Among other instructions, the Court gave these on the trial:
“1. It is not necessary to prove force in the entry if the detainer is forcible.
“ 2. Forcible holding warrants the jury in presuming a forcible entry.
“ 4. It is not necessary to have had the land fenced, to constitute an actual possession by the plaintiff.
“ 5. Such a commencement of the fence as to vindicate (indicate ?) *318his boundary, constituted an actual possession as much as if he had it…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Peters v. HolderSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Kerr v. O'KeefeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- McMinn v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Taylor v. ScottOregon Supreme Court · 1883
- Morris v. TurleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.