Rogers v. Hackett

California Supreme Court

Rogers v. Hackett

49 Cal. 121

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1874

DocketNo. 4,159

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Cal. 121 (Rogers v. Hackett) 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

Rogers v. Hackett, 49 Cal. 121 (Cal. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

The Court erred in rendering judgment upon the pleadings. It appears from the answer that the time during which the defendant was entitled to occupy the land under the terms of the agreement set forth had not expired when the demand for possession was made. This fact, if proven, would constitute a complete defense to the action; whatever [124]*124construction may be given to the agreement, as being a lease or otherwise, is a point which it is unnecessary to consider.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

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

By the Court:

The Court erred in rendering judgment upon the pleadings. It appears from the answer that the time during which the defendant was entitled to occupy the land under the terms of the agreement set forth had not expired when the demand for possession was made. This fact, if proven, would constitute a complete defense to the action; whatever [124]*124construction may be given to the agreement, as being a lease or otherwise, is a point which it is unnecessary to consider.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Cal. 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-hackett-cal-1874.