Crane v. Ghirardelli
This text of 45 Cal. 235 (Crane v. Ghirardelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This was an action of ejectment, and judgment below passed for the plaintiff. .The findings are as follows:
“ The defendant, Ghirardelli, claimed to be in the possession of the same at the commencement of this action, and [236]*236exercised acts of ownership over it, no one being in the actual possession of it. And he made this claim and exercised these acts adversely to the plaintiff, and without right or title in himself.”
It is argued for the appellant that finding that he was not in the actual possession of the premises is necessarily fatal to the judgment below. We do not think so. The possession to be shown in the defendant in an action of ejectment need not be actual, as contradistinguished from constructive, in its character. (Noe v. Card, 14 Cal. 609.)
Under the rule concerning implied findings, adverted to in Tubbs v. Ghirardelli, ante, p. 231, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
45 Cal. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crane-v-ghirardelli-cal-1873.