Heron v. Kelly

Is the action of forcible entry and detainer available by one who is entitled to the possession of land but who is not in the actual physical occupancy thereof at the time of a forcible or other unlawful entry on such land by another?

As I understand the majority opinion the question requires a negative answer.

This leads them to say that the statutory form of complaint employing the phrase “lawfully entitled to the possession” is applicable to unlawful detainer by one lawfully entering into possession and holding over, only.

The trouble started with unfortunate language in Romero v. Gonzales, 3…