Pico v. Phelan

19 P. 186, 77 Cal. 86, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 628
California Supreme Court·Decided September 22, 1888·No. No. 12361·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Hayne, C.

Action to recover rent of certain real property for the 1882. It was admitted that there was no agreement for that year. The theory of plaintiff was that defendant was formerly his tenant and held over. The court found that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties; and we think that the evidence shows that the possession of defendant was adverse to the plaintiff. There was no error in law or abuse of discretion.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

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

Pico v. Phelan, 19 P. 186, 77 Cal. 86, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 628 (Cal. 1888).

19 P. 186 (Pico v. Phelan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Murphy v. Kelly
289 P.2d 565 (California Court of Appeal, 1955)
Sheppard v. Coeur d'Alene Lumber Co.
112 P. 932 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
Adsit v. Kaufman
121 F. 355 (Ninth Circuit, 1903)
Dixon v. Ahern
34 P. 337 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1890)