Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Cal. Unrep. 344

Millich v. Gutternich

California Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1884

California Supreme Court · decided 1884-07-24

This was an action under the forcible entry and detainer law to recover the possession of certain premises and damages for the withholding thereof. Plaintiff alleged a lease by him to defendant, which lease had expired, and that since the expiration of the lease defendant refused, though duly notified, to deliver possession of the premises to plaintiff.

Decided 1884-07-24

By the COURT.

¶1This action was properly brought under section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the judgment of the court below must be reversed for errors in the proceedings.

¶2*345In the first place, the findings do not support the judgment. No such lease as that set forth in the complaint is found by the court; but, on the contrary, a contract for a lease is found essentially different from the terms of the lease which is declared on, and is the foundation of plaintiff’s action.

¶3There was also error in the ruling of the court found in the fourth bill of exceptions. The plaintiff testified that he was not in the city of Santa Cruz on the twenty-third day of January, 1879. This was material evidence in the case, and it was competent for the defendant to contradict him on this point.

¶4For these errors the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. So ordered.

/2/calunrep/344 · .json · Public domain