Raffetto v. Fiori

50 Cal. 363
California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1875·No. No. 4852·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court:

The plaintiffs were not in possession of the premises in controversy, in May, 1873, when the action was brought. The fifth finding is, that the defendants were then in possession, and had been so in possession ever since August, 1870. The action is not brought to recover the possession of the premises, but is an action of trespass. The plaintiffs had judgment for one dollar, and also perpetually enjoining the defendants from working the premises or removing the gold or earth therefrom. "Where the plaintiff is actually dis-seized of the land, and the defendant is in the adverse possession thereof, an action of this character cannot be maintained.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

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

Raffetto v. Fiori, 50 Cal. 363 (Cal. 1875).

50 Cal. 363 (Raffetto v. Fiori) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Whittaker v. Otto
248 Cal. App. 2d 666 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
Alechoff v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp.
257 P. 569 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Lightner Mining Co. v. Lane
120 P. 771 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Flood v. E. L. Goldstein Co.
110 P. 916 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Dunker v. the Field and Tule Club
92 P. 502 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Heilbron v. Heinlen
14 P. 22 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Fabian v. Collins
3 Mont. 215 (Montana Supreme Court, 1878)
Felton v. Justice
51 Cal. 529 (California Supreme Court, 1876)