Howell v. Rogers

California Supreme Court

Howell v. Rogers

47 Cal. 291

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

DocketNo. 2,528

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 Cal. 291 (Howell v. Rogers) 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

Howell v. Rogers, 47 Cal. 291 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

The grounds relied upon by the defendants for a reversal of the judgment are—first, that the plaintiff did not prove such a possession in himself or his grantors as to entitle him to the benefit of the Van Ness Ordinance; second, that the action was barred by the act of March 5th, 1864, commonly known as the “ Hawes Limitation Act.” (Statutes 1863-4, p. 149). On the first point it will suffice to say that it is untenable. The proof established a sufficient possession in the grantors of the plaintiff to entitle them to the benefit of the ordinance. The second point is also untenable. If the defendant intended to rely upon the act of March 5th, 1864, as a defense, he should have pleaded it specially. The act applies only to a particular class of eases; and a defendant who claims its protection, must set it up as a defense in his answer, or he will be deemed to have waived it. In such cases a plea of the. general statute of limitations will not suffice.

Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

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

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

The grounds relied upon by the defendants for a reversal of the judgment are—first, that the plaintiff did not prove such a possession in himself or his grantors as to entitle him to the benefit of the Van Ness Ordinance; second, that the action was barred by the act of March 5th, 1864, commonly known as the “ Hawes Limitation Act.” (Statutes 1863-4, p. 149). On the first point it will suffice to say that it is untenable. The proof established a sufficient possession in the grantors of the plaintiff to entitle them to the benefit of the ordinance. The second point is also untenable. If the defendant intended to rely upon the act of March 5th, 1864, as a defense, he should have pleaded it specially. The act applies only to a particular class of eases; and a defendant who claims its protection, must set it up as a defense in his answer, or he will be deemed to have waived it. In such cases a plea of the. general statute of limitations will not suffice.

Judgment affirmed. Remittitur forthwith.

Mr. Chief Justice Wallace did not express an opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 Cal. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-rogers-cal-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack