Lachman v. Barnett

16 Nev. 154
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1881
DocketNo. 1,036
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 Nev. 154 (Lachman v. Barnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lachman v. Barnett, 16 Nev. 154 (Neb. 1881).

Opinion

By the Court,

Belknap, J".:

This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The defendants, claiming an easement in a narrow strip of land alleged to be unlawfully withheld by them, introduced in evidence upon the'trial, against plaintiffs’ objections, two quitclaim deeds of premises embracing this strip. The elder-deed was executed by defendants to one Becker; the junior-one by Becker to plaintiffs, and each purported to reserve the easement. The deeds were admitted -“as tending to show possession' in the defendants and as characterizing their possession, and for no other purpose.” The deeds did not show nor tend to show an actual possession in the defendants and were not admissible for such purpose. (Sanchez v. Loureyro, 46 Cal. 641.) Their- tendency was to prove a right of possession in defendants, but that was a question that could not be litigated in this action.

The case was tried upon the theory and the jury were instructed that neither title nor right of possession was involved, but with the deeds before the jury we can not say that plaintiffs may not have been prejudiced.

The judgment of the district courtis reversed and a new trial ordered-

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

Related

Moye v. Thurber
40 So. 823 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1906)
Jenkins v. Jeffrey
29 P. 186 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1892)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Nev. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lachman-v-barnett-nev-1881.