Shelby v. Houston
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. The defendants appealed. The action was under the statute against forcible entries and detainers. • The complaint and findings were as follows : COMPLAINT.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the County Court, City and County of San Francisco. The defendants appealed. The action was under the statute against forcible entries and detainers. • The complaint and findings were as follows : COMPLAINT. Jennings T. Shelby, plaintiff in this suit, by Patterson, Wallace & Stow, his attorneys, now filing this, his amended complaint, complains of William Houston, J. L. Farrington, and C. Rorhle, defendants, and for cause of complaint shows that at the time of commencing of the wrongs hereinafter complained of, he was, and for a long time before that had been in the actual,…
1Opinion of the CourtSanderson, J.
This action was brought under the Statute of 1866, in relation to forcible entries and unlawful detainers. (Stats. 1865—6, p. 768.) The first section of that statute defines a forcible entry; the second defines a forcible detainer; and the third declares that an unlawfid entry, if made in the night time, or during the absence of the occupant of the premises, followed by a demand and a refusal to surrender for a period of five days, shall be deemed to be a forcible detainer; provided, that a party shall be deemed to be an actual occupant of lands within the meaning of that section, if he has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Minturn v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Valencia v. CouchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
3Cited by18 opinions
- Jordan v. TalbotCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Carteri v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Knowles v. Crocker Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- Babcock v. AntisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Giddings v. '76 Land & Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.