From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunphy v. Heinmann

Supreme Court of California
Mar 15, 1888
2 Cal. Unrep. 851 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

          Department 1. Appeal from superior court, Monterey county; JOHN K. ALEXANDER, Judge.

         Ejectment by William Dunphy, plaintiff, against Fritz Heinmann, defendant. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

         COUNSEL

          Wm. H. Webb, for appellant.

          Geil & Morehouse, for respondent.


          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

          Appeal from the judgment. The only point made is that there was no finding upon the issue as to ouster. It is found that plaintiff was not at any time the owner of the premises, or entitled to the possession thereof or any part of the same, ‘nor did defendant, during any of said time, wrongfully or unlawfully enter upon or oust the plaintiff therefrom, nor then nor now wrongfully withhold the same or any part thereof from plaintiff.’ This appeal was evidently not taken in good faith, and is frivolous.

          Judgment affirmed, with $50 damages for taking a frivolous appeal.


Summaries of

Dunphy v. Heinmann

Supreme Court of California
Mar 15, 1888
2 Cal. Unrep. 851 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

Dunphy v. Heinmann

Case Details

Full title:DUNPHY v. HEINMANN.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Mar 15, 1888

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 851 (Cal. 1888)
2 Cal. Unrep. 851

Citing Cases

Stidom v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin.

Therefore, the Commissioner asserts the ALJ was not required to consider evidence relating to that disorder…

Patton v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am. Chattanooga Operations, LLC

It contends that the arbitration agreement constitutes a valid agreement to arbitrate and that all of…