Legal Opinion

Dashiell v. Slingerland

California Supreme Court

Decided June 30, 1882No. 7,973PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of Mendocino County. McGarvey, J.

1Opinion of the Court

Thornton, J.:

The plaintiff brought this action to recover of defendant damages for a trespass on his land, and tearing down and removing a fence therefrom, and leaving his pasture land uninclosed, whereby he avers that he has suffered damage to the amount of nine hundred dollars. The defendant in his answer admitted the title of the plaintiff to the land on which the wrongs are alleged to have been committed. On the trial the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for two hundred dollars, on which judgment was accordingly entered. The defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and *654he…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Solomon v. ReeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Votan v. ReeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Gordon v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
  4. Bolton v. LandersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Lord v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Gardiner v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Becker v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.California Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Lehnhardt v. JenningsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Rubio Cañon Land & Water Ass'n v. EverettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API