Brown v. Martin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Marin County. This action was commenced on the 26th day of January, 1863. The complaint alleged that the ouster took place on the second day of January, 1858. Defendant Martin demurred to the complaint, because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court overruled the demurrer.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Marin County. This action was commenced on the 26th day of January, 1863. The complaint alleged that the ouster took place on the second day of January, 1858. Defendant Martin demurred to the complaint, because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The Court overruled the demurrer. The defendants then filed the following answer: “ The said defendants, for answer to the allegations of the complaint in this cause, say, that the said Plaintiff is not and never was the owner in fee simple, or otherwise, nor is…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, C. J.
This is an action of ejectment, and the appeal stands upon the judgment roll alone. Two points are made by comisel for •appellant:
First—That it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises in controversy at the time the action was commenced.
Second—That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
I. The allegations of the complaint are: “ That on the 1st day of January, 1858, the said plaintiff was and ever since has been, and still is the owner hr fee simple, seized and possessed,…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Burke v. MaguireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Saliter v. Pierce Brothers MortuariesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Bliss v. SneathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Brennan v. FordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Cal. Safe Deposit & Tr. Co. v. Sierra Valleys Ry.California Supreme Court · 1910
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.