From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laird v. Waterford

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1875
50 Cal. 315 (Cal. 1875)

Opinion

         Appeal from the County Court of the County of Stanislaus.

         The complaint contained three counts: one for an unlawful entry upon a tract of mining claims, and a refusal to deliver possession of the same after demand; another for a forcible entry on the claims, and unlawfully keeping possession of the same; and a third for keeping possession of the claims with a strong hand, and by menaces and threats of violence.

         The evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs tended to show that, in 1863, the plaintiffs commenced running tunnels for prospecting purposes, in a spur of Red Mountain, in the gold regions in Stanislaus County, and built a log cabin near by, which they occupied while at work. That the plaintiffs continued prospecting, at different times, till about November, 1873, when they ceased work, and did not again occupy the claim or cabin, although their tools remained in the cabin. The defendants, in May, 1874, entered upon and claimed a portion of the ground upon which the plaintiffs had prospected, and also repaired and occupied the plaintiffs' cabin. Prior to the entry of the defendants, the plaintiffs had not marked off or designated by boundaries the ground claimed by them. The plaintiffs, in October, 1874, caused a survey to be made of about six hundred acres, including the ground claimed by the defendants. The land was public land. More than five days before the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs served on the defendants a written demand for the surrender of the tract described in the complaint, but the defendants failed to comply with the demand. The action was commenced on the 5th day of November, 1874. When the plaintiffs rested, the defendants moved the court for a nonsuit, on the following grounds:

         1. That there is no evidence showing that the plaintiffs, or any of them, were in the actual, peaceable or exclusive possession of any of the land mentioned and described in the complaint, at the time defendants entered thereon.

         2. There is no evidence tending to show any forcible or unlawful entry, or any forcible or unlawful detainer.

         The court denied the motion, and the defendants excepted.

         The plaintiffs obtained a verdict and judgment. The defendants appealed from the judgment and from an order denying a new trial.

         COUNSEL

          H. F. Crane, for the Appellants.

         J. J. Scrivner and H. A. Gehr, for the Respondents.


         OPINION          By the Court:

         The motion of defendants for a nonsuit ought to have been granted. The plaintiffs failed to prove such a possession of the demanded premises as entitled them to maintain the action, under the second subdivision of section 1160 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and there was no proof of a forcible entry or detainer.

         Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded with an order to the court below to dismiss the action.

         Remittitur forthwith.


Summaries of

Laird v. Waterford

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1875
50 Cal. 315 (Cal. 1875)
Case details for

Laird v. Waterford

Case Details

Full title:J. W. LAIRD et al. v. E. C. WATERFORD et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1875

Citations

50 Cal. 315 (Cal. 1875)