Davis v. Butler

6 Cal. 510
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 510 (Davis v. Butler) 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.

Bluebook
Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510 (Cal. 1856).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

On the trial of this cause the following instruction was asked: “that if the jury found from the testimony that the plaintiff had abandoned his interest in the claim in controversy, and did not intend to return and work it before the commencement of this suit, he could not recover,” which was given with this qualification : “ subject to the seventeenth section of the Statute of Limitations, which permits an action to be brought for the recovery of personal property any time within three years.”

The qualification was erroneous; the inference of abandonment may arise from a single act, as well as from a series of acts, continued through a long space of time. It is a fact to be determined from the particular circumstances of the case. A party, after having abandoned his claim, will not be permitted to come in within the time allowed by the statute for commencing civil actions, and re-assert or resume his former interest, to the prejudice of those who may have afterwards appropriated it.

The statute was not designed to operate on such cases, giving, a man a right for a term of years in the premises against his express wishes.

The abandonment determines the right of the party from the day of [512]*512the act, and the property is to him as though he had never owned or occupied it.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

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

Related

J. A. Bel Lumber Co. v. Stout
64 So. 881 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1914)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Bradbury
79 S.W. 966 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
Oviatt v. Big Four Mining Co.
65 P. 811 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1901)
State ex rel. Lavin v. Bacon
85 N.W. 225 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1901)
Harkrader v. Carroll
76 F. 474 (D. Alaska, 1896)
State ex rel. Wood v. Sheldon
67 N.W. 613 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1896)
Inez Min. Co. v. Kinney
46 F. 832 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho, 1891)
Derry v. Ross
5 Colo. 295 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1880)
Dodge v. Marden
7 Or. 456 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1879)
People ex rel. Madden v. Stratton
28 Cal. 382 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Stephens v. Mansfield
11 Cal. 363 (California Supreme Court, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cal. 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-butler-cal-1856.