Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Cal. 113

Haight v. Green

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861

California Supreme Court · decided 1861-07-01

Ejectment for a lot in San Francisco. The complaint, among other things, avers that “ heretofore, to wit: on the first day of January, A. D. 1855, Joseph Hetherington was seized and possessed of a certain lot or parcel of ground in the city and county of San Francisco,” etc.; that on said day, said Hetherington was the owner of said lot, and was at that time, or shortly previous thereto, in the actual possession of the same; that after said day and before the twenty-ninth…

Relies on Payne & Dewey v. Treadwell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1973

1 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

40186118701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

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

¶2The judgment is affirmed. We think the complaint sufficient within the rules laid down in Payne and Dewey v. Treadwell (16 Cal. 220). The point that the executor could not sue for damages for the trespass, is answered by the statute. (Woods’ Digest, 411, secs. 195, 196.)

¶32. The stipulation prima facie was sufficient to maintain the action. The effect of it is to admit that the title was in Hetherington before the entry of defendant; that the defendant entered under him; and that she afterwards set up claim to the premises. The effect of these facts, if they had been proved, would be to show title in Hetherington, entry by his consent, and a holding in contravention of the tenancy. It is true that the stipulation adds to the admission of these facts that it is not designed to admit a tenancy; but such is the legal effect of the facts expressly admitted; and the qualifying terms have no effect of excluding the legal conclusions resulting from the admission of specific facts.

¶43. The discretion of the Court cannot be reviewed in its refusal to set aside the judgment for the cause assigned—the absence of the attorney at the time of the trial.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/19/cal/113 · .json · Public domain