Mayo v. Sprout
45 Cal. 99
Opinion
The authorities of the city were turned out of possession of the premises by means of a writ of habere facias issued in this action, to which they were not parties.
It is true they had entered only after the action of Mayo v. Sprout had been commenced, but it is clearly shown that, they did not go in under Sprout, or by collusion with him.
Under such circumstances it was an abuse of the process of the Court to disturb them, and the Court below properly directed that they be restored to the possession.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mayo v. Sprout, 45 Cal. 99 (Cal. 1872).
45 Cal. 99 (Mayo v. Sprout) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pacific States Savings & Loan Co. v. Harwell
268 P. 341 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
King v. Davis
137 F. 198 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Virginia, 1903)
Sonnenberg v. Steinbach
70 N.W. 655 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1897)