From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaeffer v. Matzen

Supreme Court of California
Feb 25, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 271 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

          The legal title being only opposed by a mere naked possession, the holder of such title is entitled to the possession.

         Department 2.

         COUNSEL

         J. H. McKune, for appellant.

         Long, Lott & Belcher, for respondent.


          OPINION

         THE COURT.

          The defendant Stillinger does not appear to have had any claim to the demanded premises beyond what his naked possession gave him; and at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff had the legal title, and was entitled to the possession of said premises. This is sufficiently apparent, although somewhat obscured by the finding of a great number of irrelevant facts.

          Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Shaeffer v. Matzen

Supreme Court of California
Feb 25, 1884
2 Cal. Unrep. 271 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Shaeffer v. Matzen

Case Details

Full title:SHAEFFER v. MATZEN.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Feb 25, 1884

Citations

2 Cal. Unrep. 271 (Cal. 1884)
2 Cal. Unrep. 271

Citing Cases

Persons v. Shaeffer

But at the time of the execution of the mortgages in this case it appeared by the record that the Wilcoxson…

Hudgins v. Boyd

Swaggerty and the victim went to the maternal grandmother's house in response to the daughter's text [Doc.…