¶1The judgment of the Court below is, in my opinion, erroneous, because th£ intervenor is not entitled to a judgment against the plaintiff for the recovery of the possession of the premises either on the pleadings or on the stipulation. The judgment of this Court on the former appeal reversing the *184order denying the intervenor’s motion for a new trial may he construed, without doing violence to its language, as ordering judgment that the intervenor recover the possession -of the premises from the defendants, the only parties, so far as the record showed, who held such possession.
45 Cal. 180
Donner v. Palmer
Decided July 1, 1872
California Supreme Court · decided 1872-07-01
The principal facts of this case are found in a report of the same, on the first appeal reported, in 31 Cal. 500. The intervenor, Bradley, in his complaint, averred that he was the owner of the undivided one fourth of the demanded premises, and that the defendants unlawfully entered and ousted him.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1909
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1872-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →