Barlow v. Burns
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe County Court of Monterey County. Defendant demurred to tbe complaint, and tbe demurrer was overruled by tbe Court, Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe County Court of Monterey County. Defendant demurred to tbe complaint, and tbe demurrer was overruled by tbe Court, Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion. The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Valencia v. Gouch, 32 Cal. 342; Shelby v. Houston, 38 Id. 410.) There is no allegation of demand. [Forcible Entry Act, Stats. 1865-6, p. 769, Sec. 3, Practice Act, Sec. 42; More v. Del Valle, 28 Cal. 172), Concerning possession under the Act we cite: Preston v. Kehoe, (15 Cal. 315); Wright v. Whitesides, (Id. 47); Murphy v. Wallingford, (6 Id.…
1Opinion of the Court
Temple, J.-,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
This-is an action of forcible entry and detainer, in which *353judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant’s motion for anew trial baying been overruled, an appeal is taken from tbe judgment and tbe order denying a new trial,
Tbe complaint is in two counts. Bn tbe first tbe plaintiff states bis possession and tbe-entry of defendant during bis absence, but does not allege a withholding of any character, or a demand of possession, or a refusal, or tbe use of any force or menace. In tbe second count be shows that tbe defendant being in tbe…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Haskell v. HaskellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Conroy v. DuaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Bidwell v. BabcockCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Anderson v. MillsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Chezum v. CampbellWashington Supreme Court · 1906
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.