Carpentier v. Mitchell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, Contra Costa County. This was an action to recover possession of a tract of land in Contra Costa County, containing five hundred acres. On the 1st day of September, 1858, the plaintiff was the owner in fee and seized in law of an undivided one half of the tract. The action was commenced on the 22d day of December, 1862. The defendants were in possession of and occupying exclusively separate parcels of the tract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifteenth Judicial District, Contra Costa County. This was an action to recover possession of a tract of land in Contra Costa County, containing five hundred acres. On the 1st day of September, 1858, the plaintiff was the owner in fee and seized in law of an undivided one half of the tract. The action was commenced on the 22d day of December, 1862. The defendants were in possession of and occupying exclusively separate parcels of the tract. On the 15th day of January, I860, the defendant Perkins, and on the 15th day of November, 1862, the defendant Johnson, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sawyer, J.
The principal questions in this case are determined in Carpentier v. Webster, 27 Cal. 524, and Carpentier v. Mendenhall, 28 Cal. 484. In this case the Court found an ouster by a portion of the defendants on the 19th of December, 1862, at the time of the demand by plaintiff to be let into possession, and refusal by such defendants—and by the other defendants at an earlier day; and we think the evidence on this point sufficient to justify the finding. In Carpentier v. Mendenhall, the jury only found the evidence which tended to show an ouster without finding the fact of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Collection Bureau of San Jose v. RumseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Carpentier v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Carpentier v. MendenhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Hare v. FurySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1800
- Langendyck v. BurhansNew York Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by7 opinions
- Zaslow v. KroenertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
- Paul v. CragnazNevada Supreme Court · 1900
- Himrod v. Ft. Pitt Mining & Milling Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
- Love v. ShartzerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- McKenzie v. GussnerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.