Hutchinson v. Perley

California Supreme Court

Hutchinson v. Perley

4 Cal. 34

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 34 (Hutchinson v. Perley) 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

Hutchinson v. Perley, 4 Cal. 34 (Cal. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

Possession is always prima facie evidence of title, and proof of prior possession is enough to maintain ejectment against a mere naked trespasser.

The allegation that the plaintiff was in possession at the the time of the ouster complained of, is a sufficient allegation of title to make the declaration good.

The demurrer was, therefore, improperly sustained.

The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.

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

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

Possession is always prima facie evidence of title, and proof of prior possession is enough to maintain ejectment against a mere naked trespasser.

The allegation that the plaintiff was in possession at the the time of the ouster complained of, is a sufficient allegation of title to make the declaration good.

The demurrer was, therefore, improperly sustained.

The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Cal. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-perley-cal-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack