Bolton v. Landers

27 Cal. 104
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1864·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

By the Court, Currey, J.

This action is brought to recover the lands described in the complaint in the case of Landers and Wife v. Bolton. It involves the same questions decided in that case, and they must be determined in the same way.

The plea in abatement of the pendency of the action in the case of Landers and Wife v. Bolton cannot defeat this action. Although the same questions are litigated in both, the relief sought is different.

The effect of the denial of plaintiff’s title by defendant was to make him a trespasser, and he was not entitled to notice to quit. (Smith v. Ogg Shaw, 16 Cal. 88; Ingraham v. Baldwin, 5 Seld. 46, 47.)

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Sawyer expressed no opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bolton v. Landers, 27 Cal. 104 (Cal. 1864).

27 Cal. 104 (Bolton v. Landers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Louisville v. Louisville Seed Company
433 S.W.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1968)
Hollar v. Saline Products, Inc.
78 P.2d 237 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Levy v. Henderson
161 P. 1004 (California Court of Appeal, 1916)
Colburn v. Dortic
49 Colo. 90 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1910)
McCarthy v. Brown
45 P. 14 (California Supreme Court, 1896)
Simpson v. Applegate
17 P. 237 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Coles v. Yorks
17 N.W. 341 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Campbell v. Jones
38 Cal. 507 (California Supreme Court, 1869)