Bird v. Dennison
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, the District Court of the ¡Ninth Judicial District, County of Butte. This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of part of lot number eight, block one, in the city of Oroville.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the District Court of the ¡Ninth Judicial District, County of Butte. This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of part of lot number eight, block one, in the city of Oroville. The defence set up title in the United States; that defendant took possession of the same in the year 1855, and had erected thereon a storehouse, and had used and occupied the same ever since; that plaintiff's grantor had, at various times, disclaimed all right or title to the lot, and had thereby induced defendant to erect and make valuable improvements thereon, of the value of two thousand dollars,…
1Opinion of the CourtMurray, C. J.
The Court below erred in refusing the fourth instruction asked by the defendant’s counsel. It is in the language of this Court, in the cases of Plume v. Seward, 4 Cal., and Murphy v. Walling-ford, October Term, 1856.
The respondent contends that there was no evidence to point the instruction, and, therefore, it was immaterial. On examination of the record,.it appears that one of the points of controversy was as to the location of the premises in dispute, and the instruction was pertinent in this respect, and' should have been given.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Bubnett, J.
This was an…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jaques v. WeeksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
- Peter v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1836
3Cited by13 opinions
- Delaney v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- People v. DarbyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- People v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Perkins v. ThornburghCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.