Shaeffer v. Matzen

California Supreme Court

Shaeffer v. Matzen

3 P. 95, 2 Cal. Unrep. 271

DecidedFebruary 25, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 3 P. 95 (Shaeffer v. Matzen) 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

Shaeffer v. Matzen, 3 P. 95, 2 Cal. Unrep. 271 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

The defendant Stillinger does not appear to have had any claim to the demanded premises beyond what his naked possession gave him; and at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff had the legal title, and was entitled to the possession of said premises. This is sufficiently apparent, although somewhat obscured by the finding of a great number of irrelevant facts.

Judgment affirmed.

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

By the COURT.

The defendant Stillinger does not appear to have had any claim to the demanded premises beyond what his naked possession gave him; and at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff had the legal title, and was entitled to the possession of said premises. This is sufficiently apparent, although somewhat obscured by the finding of a great number of irrelevant facts.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 P. 95, 2 Cal. Unrep. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaeffer-v-matzen-cal-1884.