Hughes v. Parsons

California Supreme Court

Hughes v. Parsons

6 P. 380, 2 Cal. Unrep. 451, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 828

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1885

DocketNo. 8609

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 P. 380 (Hughes v. Parsons) 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

Hughes v. Parsons, 6 P. 380, 2 Cal. Unrep. 451, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 828 (Cal. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

ROSS, J.

By the verdict rendered in this ease the jury in effect found that the defendant entered upon the prior possession of the plaintiff of the disputed premises and dispossessed her. An examination of the evidence shows that it is substantially conflicting upon the question as to whether the land was in the actual possession of plaintiff or Conroy. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff must therefore be taken as conclusive of the question. The ruling of the court below in respect to the burning of the cabin and fencing resulted in no injury to the appellant, for the jury only awarded the plaintiff nominal damages. The ruling in regard to the question put to Conroy, if erroneous, was cured by his subsequent testimony to the effect that he had possession of the disputed premises from July, 1874,' to the 1st of June, 1879. The instruction is not open to objection on the party of the defendant.

Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: McKee, J.; McKinstry, J.

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

ROSS, J.

By the verdict rendered in this ease the jury in effect found that the defendant entered upon the prior possession of the plaintiff of the disputed premises and dispossessed her. An examination of the evidence shows that it is substantially conflicting upon the question as to whether the land was in the actual possession of plaintiff or Conroy. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff must therefore be taken as conclusive of the question. The ruling of the court below in respect to the burning of the cabin and fencing resulted in no injury to the appellant, for the jury only awarded the plaintiff nominal damages. The ruling in regard to the question put to Conroy, if erroneous, was cured by his subsequent testimony to the effect that he had possession of the disputed premises from July, 1874,' to the 1st of June, 1879. The instruction is not open to objection on the party of the defendant.

Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: McKee, J.; McKinstry, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 P. 380, 2 Cal. Unrep. 451, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-parsons-cal-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack