Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff

California Supreme Court

Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff

34 P. 518, 4 Cal. Unrep. 294, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 1104

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1893

DocketNo. 19,180

StatusPublished

This text of 34 P. 518 (Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff) 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

Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Hoff, 34 P. 518, 4 Cal. Unrep. 294, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 1104 (Cal. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of ejectment brought against the defendant Hoff and over one hundred others to recover possession of the south half of the San Fernando rancho in Los Angeles county. Upon the facts shown at the trial we think there can be no question as to the right of the plaintiff to recover in this action, and the question of error in the instructions becomes immaterial. The supreme court of the United States, in a recent decision, has construed the act of Congress of February 25, 1885, and in effect answered every proposition upon which the appellants rely herein Cameron v. United States, 148 U. S. 301, 37 L. Ed. 459, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595. The plaintiff has been in the possession, under sanction of a judicial decree, for about twenty-five years. Its claim has been made in good faith and under color of title, while the defendants are mere naked trespassers. The case comes squarely, therefore, within the decision above referred to, and requires no further consideration: See, also, United States v. Brandestein, 32 Fed. 740, 13 Saw. 64, and Rourke v. McNally, 98 Cal. 296, 33 Pac. 62. We find no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action of ejectment brought against the defendant Hoff and over one hundred others to recover possession of the south half of the San Fernando rancho in Los Angeles county. Upon the facts shown at the trial we think there can be no question as to the right of the plaintiff to recover in this action, and the question of error in the instructions becomes immaterial. The supreme court of the United States, in a recent decision, has construed the act of Congress of February 25, 1885, and in effect answered every proposition upon which the appellants rely herein Cameron v. United States, 148 U. S. 301, 37 L. Ed. 459, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595. The plaintiff has been in the possession, under sanction of a judicial decree, for about twenty-five years. Its claim has been made in good faith and under color of title, while the defendants are mere naked trespassers. The case comes squarely, therefore, within the decision above referred to, and requires no further consideration: See, also, United States v. Brandestein, 32 Fed. 740, 13 Saw. 64, and Rourke v. McNally, 98 Cal. 296, 33 Pac. 62. We find no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 P. 518, 4 Cal. Unrep. 294, 1893 Cal. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/los-angeles-farming-milling-co-v-hoff-cal-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack