From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pico v. Phelan

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1888
77 Cal. 86 (Cal. 1888)

Opinion

         Appeal for a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

         COUNSEL:

         Howards & Scott, for Appellant.

          S. Haley, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: In Bank. Hayne, C. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

         OPINION

          HAYNE, Judge

         Action to recover rent of certain real property for the 1882. It was admitted that there was no agreement for that year. The theory of plaintiff was that defendant was formerly his tenant and held over. The court found that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties; and we think that the evidence shows that the possession of defendant was adverse to the plaintiff. There was no error in law or abuse of discretion.

         We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

         The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.


Summaries of

Pico v. Phelan

Supreme Court of California
Sep 22, 1888
77 Cal. 86 (Cal. 1888)
Case details for

Pico v. Phelan

Case Details

Full title:PIO PICO, Appellant, v. THOMAS PHELAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 22, 1888

Citations

77 Cal. 86 (Cal. 1888)
19 P. 186

Citing Cases

Murphy v. Kelly

Assuming that as owners of the property defendants could successfully maintain an action to recover the…

Carlton v. Williams

          HAYNE, Judge           [19 P. 186] Action of ejectment. The defendant claims the right to the…