Sawyer v. Sargent

7 P. 120, 2 Cal. Unrep. 480, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 832
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedMay 28, 1885
DocketNo. 9840
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 P. 120 (Sawyer v. Sargent) 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
Sawyer v. Sargent, 7 P. 120, 2 Cal. Unrep. 480, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 832 (Cal. 1885).

Opinion

ROSS, J.

The court below found, and there was evidence sufficient to sustain the finding, that the defendant entered into possession of the demanded premises under a written lease from the plaintiff and one Thomas, and that prior to the commencement of this action, which is ejectment, the term of the lease expired. There is nothing in the case to take it out of the general rule that a tenant cannot dispute his landlord’s title. The estoppel, as said in Tewksbury v. Magraff, 33 Cal. 244, “continues, not to the end of the term merely, but to the end of the tenant’s occupation; or, where there has, been a repudiation of the tenancy, and a subsequent adverse holding by the tenant, until the statute of limitations has run in his favor. He cannot set up an adverse title which [481]*481he may have acquired. Before he can avail himself of such a title he must surrender the possession.”

It is not necessary to determine other questions discussed by counsel.

Judgment and orders affirmed.

We concur: McKee, J. ; McKinstry, J.

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

Related

California & Oregon Land Co. v. Munz
29 F. 837 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 P. 120, 2 Cal. Unrep. 480, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawyer-v-sargent-cal-1885.