Knight v. Truett

18 Cal. 113
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1861·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.

The plaintiff sues as purchaser at a sheriff’s sale to recover the value of the use and occupation of certain premises from the time of the sale until a redemption. The evidence upon the question [115]*115of occupation is somewhat conflicting, and the findings of the Court are therefore conclusive. We think the defendants must be regarded as tenants in possession within the meaning of the two hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Practice Act. McDevitt v. Sullivan (8 Cal. 592) and Harris v. Reynolds (13 Cal. 514) are decisive of this point.

The facts found by the Court entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

See Kline v. Chase, infra.

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

Knight v. Truett, 18 Cal. 113 (Cal. 1861).

18 Cal. 113 (Knight v. Truett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carpenter v. Hamilton
147 P.2d 563 (California Supreme Court, 1944)
Geo. B. Clifford & Co. v. Henry
169 N.W. 508 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1918)
Whithed v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.
83 N.W. 238 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Hardy v. Herriott
39 P. 958 (Washington Supreme Court, 1895)
Rudolph v. Herman
56 N.W. 901 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1893)
Clement v. Shipley
51 N.W. 414 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
Walker v. McCusker
12 P. 723 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Otis v. McMillan & Sons
70 Ala. 46 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1881)
Walls v. Walker
37 Cal. 424 (California Supreme Court, 1869)