Treat v. Liddell

10 Cal. 302
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 10 Cal. 302 (Treat v. Liddell) 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
Treat v. Liddell, 10 Cal. 302 (Cal. 1858).

Opinion

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J., and Field, J., concurring.

[303]*303There is no misjoinder of parties plaintiff; the action does not arise upon contract, but in tort. By failing to pay rent when demanded, the contract under the lease was determined, and the possession of the defendants was, from that time, tortious.

The question of title to the property does not arise ; the lease is evidence, not of title in the plaintiff, but of the fact of actual possession prior to defendants’ entry, and of the fact that defendants acquired possession under them.

The verdict and evidence are conclusive that the judgment recovered by Hoe against defendants was collusive, and was suffered with intent to defraud plaintiff. It was, therefore, void as to them. (See section 20 of the Statutes of Frauds, Wood’s Digest, 107.)

There being no error in the record, judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Reno Mill & Lumber Co. v. Westerfield
69 P. 899 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1902)
Bates v. Howard
38 P. 715 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Austin v. Gagan
30 P. 790 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Ralph v. Lomer
28 P. 760 (Washington Supreme Court, 1891)
People v. Lum Yit
23 P. 228 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Chauvin v. Valiton
7 Mont. 581 (Montana Supreme Court, 1888)
Newton v. Brown
2 Utah 126 (Utah Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Cal. 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treat-v-liddell-cal-1858.