Knight v. Truett

Decided July 1, 1861

California Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

Suit for value of the use and occupation of a certain lot of land in Downieville, with the buildings thereon, known as the “Washington Saloon.” The Court below found that on the seventh day of May, 1859, the premises were sold at Sheriff’s sale, under an order of sale issued upon a decree of foreclosure in the case of Knight v. Reticleer et al., the plaintiff herein becoming the purchaser, and receiving the Sheriff’s certificate ; that from that day to November 7th, 185'9,…

Relies on Harris v. Reynolds · McDevitt v. Sullivan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1944

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

¶1Baldwin, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.

¶2The plaintiff sues as purchaser at a sheriff’s sale to recover the value of the use and occupation of certain premises from the time of the sale until a redemption. The evidence upon the question *115of occupation is somewhat conflicting, and the findings of the Court are therefore conclusive. We think the defendants must be regarded as tenants in possession within the meaning of the two hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Practice Act. McDevitt v. Sullivan (8 Cal. 592) and Harris v. Reynolds (13 Cal. 514) are decisive of this point.

¶3The facts found by the Court entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

¶4See Kline v. Chase, infra.