From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ketchum v. Barber

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 698 (Cal. 1886)

Opinion

          Department 2. Appeal from superior court, county of Amador.

          Ejectment for possession of a certain mining and water ditch running across defendant’s land. Plaintiff claimed title through one Henry Stull, who in turn derived, or claimed to derive, title from defendant by virtue of a deed made to Henry Stull & Co. Defendant in his answer admitted having given to Stull & Co. a right to dig and maintain the ditch, but claimed that it had been abandoned, and admitted that hence he had re-entered upon and used the ditch continuously to the time of trial. On the trial, plaintiff, to make out his title, introduced the deed to Stull & Co. in evidence, and also put in evidence the deed from Stull to himself, and proved by witnesses the possession thereunder of himself and Stull, and closed. Defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff had neither proven title nor possession in himself, nor ouster by defendant. The nonsuit was granted and plaintiff appealed.

         COUNSEL

          [2 Cal.Unrep. 699] Eagon & Armstrong, for plaintiff and appellant.

          McGee & Farnsworth, for defendant and respondent.


          OPINION

          THE COURT.

         The nonsuit was improperly granted. The deed to Henry Stull & Co. vested the title in Henry Stull. Winter v Stock, 29 Cal. 411, 412. The answer shows a sufficient ouster.

          Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Ketchum v. Barber

Supreme Court of California
Aug 31, 1886
2 Cal. Unrep. 698 (Cal. 1886)
Case details for

Ketchum v. Barber

Case Details

Full title:KETCHUM v. BARBER.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 31, 1886

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 698 (Cal. 1886)
2 Cal. Unrep. 698

Citing Cases

Moore v. Moore

’ Assuming that the evidence tended to prove the defendants were in possession of the demanded premises at…

Judkins v. Elliott

COUNSEL           [2 Cal.Unrep. 698] M. Farley and R. H. Lindsay, for appellant.           Van Clief &…