Gomez v. Reed
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Charles M. Cassin, Sullivan & Sullivan and Theo. J. Roche, Jeremiah F. Sullivan, and Theo. J. Roche, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
The plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
A demurrer of the defendants to the complaint was sustained, leave was given to the plaintiff to amend, and upon his failure to do so judgment was given in favor of the defendants.
The action is for damages to personal property and to recover alleged profits which plaintiff would have received from the use and occupation of certain lands during the year 1912, if defendants had not ousted him therefrom in December, 1911.
The complaint alleges that on December 1, 1911, the plaintiff was in the lawful and peaceable possession of 146 acres of land in San…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Treadwell v. WhittierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal & Irrigation Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Lamb v. HarbaughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Miller & Lux v. Kern County Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- Mallory v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
3Cited by7 opinions
- California Trust Co. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Coley v. HeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Mitchell v. City of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- County of San Mateo v. ChristenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Erganian v. BrightmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.