Roff v. Duane
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. The complaint averred that on the 11th day of May, 1863, the plaintiff was and for a long time had been in the peaceable possession of the land in dispute. Plaintiff testified that he went into possession on the 7th day of May, 1863, and was forcibly evicted by defendants on the eleventh of the same month.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. The complaint averred that on the 11th day of May, 1863, the plaintiff was and for a long time had been in the peaceable possession of the land in dispute. Plaintiff testified that he went into possession on the 7th day of May, 1863, and was forcibly evicted by defendants on the eleventh of the same month. The instrument offered in evidence by plaintiff as a lease, was dated on the 7th day of May, 1863. It purported to lease the land to plaintiff for the term of one month from the 7th day of May, 1863. The action was commenced on…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The County Court, on appeal, found for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. Several of the grounds assigned by the defendants on their motion for a new trial—that the judgment is against the evidence; that the plaintiff was a mere servant or *569hired man of Smith and Sullivan; and that the possession of the plaintiff was a mere scrambling possession—belong to the same general class and relate altogether to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence. The Court below…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Bowman v. HazenSupreme Court of Kansas · 1904
- Pacific Improvement Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Platt v. HuegelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Karp v. MargolisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Huston v. Big Bend Land Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1919