Mayne v. Jones

34 Cal. 483
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Cal. 483 (Mayne v. Jones) 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
Mayne v. Jones, 34 Cal. 483 (Cal. 1868).

Opinions

By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

It is very clear from the affidavits, that, at the time of the commencement of the suit, the appellant, Mary Ann Cook, then an infant of about seven years of age, was not in possession of the premises in dispute, or of any part of them. Without discussing the question, it is sufficient to say, we are, also, satisfied that she has presented no case that would justify the Court in this form of proceeding in restoring her to possession. The case is not like Watson v. Dowling, 26 Cal. 125, but is within the principle of Leese v. Clark, 29 Cal. 672.

We here take occasion to call attention to an error in the report of the latter case. The word “ defendant” should be substituted for the word “ plaintiff,” in the ninth line from the bottom of page six hundred seventy-one.

Order affirmed.

[Note.—The foregoing opinion was delivered at the October Term, 1867.]

Mr. Justice Shaeier'expressed no opinion.

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

Related

State ex rel. Planet Property & Financial Co. v. Harrington
41 Mo. App. 439 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Cal. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayne-v-jones-cal-1868.