McKune v. Montgomery

California Supreme Court

McKune v. Montgomery

9 Cal. 575

DecidedJuly 1, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Cal. 575 (McKune v. Montgomery) 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

McKune v. Montgomery, 9 Cal. 575 (Cal. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett J., concurring.

This is an action of ejectment for lands in Sacramento county.

It appears from the record that defendant Montgomery entered upon the premises in dispxite, as the tenant of Caulfield, the vendor of plaintiff, and that defendant Bacon’s possession was acquired from Montgomery.

Having entered under Caulfield, the defendants are not in a position to question his title to the premises. Whether Bacon’s entry was before or after his co-defendant had denied his landlord’s title, and claimed to hold adversely, is immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett J., concurring.

This is an action of ejectment for lands in Sacramento county.

It appears from the record that defendant Montgomery entered upon the premises in dispxite, as the tenant of Caulfield, the vendor of plaintiff, and that defendant Bacon’s possession was acquired from Montgomery.

Having entered under Caulfield, the defendants are not in a position to question his title to the premises. Whether Bacon’s entry was before or after his co-defendant had denied his landlord’s title, and claimed to hold adversely, is immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Cal. 575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckune-v-montgomery-cal-1858.