Treat v. Forsyth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. > This is an 'action for forcible entry and detainer under the statute of 1866. Judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff for restitution of the premises, and defendant moved for a new .trial; tbe motion was denied, and defendant appealed from tbe judgment and from tbe order denying tbe motion for new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court of the City and County of San Francisco. > This is an 'action for forcible entry and detainer under the statute of 1866. Judgment was rendered for tbe plaintiff for restitution of the premises, and defendant moved for a new .trial; tbe motion was denied, and defendant appealed from tbe judgment and from tbe order denying tbe motion for new trial. Tbe defendant cited tbe following grounds of error in tbe motion for a new trial, and upon appeal after tbe motion was denied; First — Errors of law occurring at tbe trial and excepted to by defendant’s counsel, to wit:…
1Opinion of the Court
Rhodes, C-. J. delivered the opinion of the Court, Temple, J., Crooeett, J., and Wallace, J., concurring:
The complaint states, in the same count, a cause of action for a forcible entry and detainer, such as is mentioned in the first section of the Fóreible Entry Act of 1866 (Stats. 1865-6, p. 768) ; and also a cause of action, for an entry upon the premises during the absence of the plaintiff, and a refusal to surrender the same after a demand made therefor, etc., which is declared by the third section of that Act to constitute a forcible detainer. As no demurrer was interposed for the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jordan v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Lewis v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
- Van Pelt v. ParkUtah Supreme Court · 1898
- Dutcher v. SandersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Jordan v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.