Sweeney v. Reilly
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action of ejectment commenced in May, 1864. The trial was hy the Court with a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. This was an action of ejectment commenced in May, 1864. The trial was hy the Court with a jury. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove that he had moved upon the land in suit in 1854, had cultivated it, and exercised other acts of ownership over it, continuously, until 1863. The following paper, duly subscribed and sworn to by the plaintiff, was offered in evidence by the defendant, and was admitted by the Court against the plaintiff’s objection: “Know all men by these presents, that…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Temple, J.:
The fact that the notice of appeal was not served until two days after it had been filed, is not a valid objection to the appeal. The statute prescribes no time within which this service must be made, except, of course, that it must be served before the undertaking is filed, which must be within five days after the notice has been filed.
The action was ejectment, and one of the issues made was whether the plaintiff had abandoned the premises before the entry of the defendants. This defense admitted the plaintiff’s prior possession for the purposes of the defense. On…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Spanagel v. DellingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
3Cited by5 opinions
- Estate of ToomesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Lindblom v. RocksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906
- Tarpey v. Deseret Salt Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1887
- People v. Ah OwnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Storch v. McCainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890