Caperton v. Schmidt
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the Court below, and defendant appealed. ^ ^ The other facts are stated in the opinion of the /Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sawyer, J.
The complaint in this action alleges, that, on thfi first day of January, 1860, the plaintiff “ was the owner in fee, and seized of and- in the possession of” Block 142, in the City of Oakland, Alameda County; that afterwards, on the 20th of January, 1860, “ whilst said plaintiff was so seized in fee and possessed of said tract of laud, the said defendant wrongfully and unlawfully entered into and upon said premises and unlawfully ousted and ejected said plaintiff therefrom, and still continues to withhold wrongfully from said plaintiff the possession of said…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hopkins v. LeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Payne & Dewey v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Wood v. Jackson ex dem. GenetCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Marsh v. PierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Gardner v. BuckbeeNew York Supreme Court · 1824
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Caseday v. LindstromOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Glenn v. SavageOregon Supreme Court · 1887
- Satterlee v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Garwood v. GarwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Davis v. WestphalMontana Supreme Court · 2017
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.