Goodrich v. Landigham
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of Colusa County. The plaintiff had judgment in an action of forcible entry and detainer brought to recover possession of eighty acres of public land, and the defendant appealed from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The only specification found in the statement on motion for new trial’ is “ that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, there being no evidence even upon the part of the plaintiff showing that the land in controversy was actually inclosed by a good or substantial fence, or that the plaintiff resided upon it at the time of the entry of the defendant.”
Neither a good and substantial fence nor a residence upon the premises was necessary to a peaceable and actual possession of the land. Fences are a means by which the possession of land may be taken and held, but are not…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Webber v. ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Nearing v. CoopNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1897
- Knowles v. Crocker Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Giddings v. '76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
- Pendo v. BeakeySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1902