Neppach v. Jordan
Oregon Supreme Court
Appeal from Multnomah County. Chapter 20 of the Miscellaneous Laws of Oregon is derogatory of the common law, and should be strictly construed. (Houser v. Reiser, 8 Cal. 499; 52 Barb. 198; 58 Barb. 270.) Forcible entry and detainer and forcible detainer only are separate causes of action (Valence v. Couch, 32 Cal. 341); and the issues raised by these pleadings are the latter only, and the court should have charged in reference to that issue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Multnomah County. Chapter 20 of the Miscellaneous Laws of Oregon is derogatory of the common law, and should be strictly construed. (Houser v. Reiser, 8 Cal. 499; 52 Barb. 198; 58 Barb. 270.) Forcible entry and detainer and forcible detainer only are separate causes of action (Valence v. Couch, 32 Cal. 341); and the issues raised by these pleadings are the latter only, and the court should have charged in reference to that issue. (Merrill v. Forbes, 23 Cal. 379; Schilling v. Holmes, 23 Cal. 227.) cites §§ 11, 12, and 13, ch. 23, Mise. Code, subd. 6; § 775, tit. 8, ch. 8, Code.
1Opinion of the CourtLord, C. J.
This was an action of forcible detainer commenced in a Justice’s Court, and in which judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and by the defendant appealed to the-Circuit Court. A trial was had and a verdict was found against the defendant of guilty, upon which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the premises described in the complaint. From this judgment the defendant has appealed to this court. The error assigned relates to certain instructions given, and the refusal to give one asked, and the substitution by the court of another in lieu thereof. Briefly,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Billings v. CanneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rio Grande Junction Railway Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1916