Webb v. Clark

California Supreme Court

Webb v. Clark

2 P. 747, 65 Cal. 56, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 439

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 12, 1884

DocketNo. 8,833

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2 P. 747 (Webb v. Clark) 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

Webb v. Clark, 2 P. 747, 65 Cal. 56, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 439 (Cal. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court.

Ejectment, wherein plaintiff established in himself a right of entry to the land in dispute at the commencement of the action, and defendant attempted to bar the right by proof of five years’ adverse possession from the time of his entry on the land in 1876. But, as a witness on his own behalf, he testified that he had not, at any time during his occupancy of the land, paid the taxes which had been levied and assessed upon [57]*57it, as required by section 325, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to establish adverse possession. Yet there was a verdict in his favor, which the court below, on'motion for a new trial, refused to set aside. This was error. (C. P. R. R. Co. v. Shackelford, 63 Cal. 261.)

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.

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

The Court.

Ejectment, wherein plaintiff established in himself a right of entry to the land in dispute at the commencement of the action, and defendant attempted to bar the right by proof of five years’ adverse possession from the time of his entry on the land in 1876. But, as a witness on his own behalf, he testified that he had not, at any time during his occupancy of the land, paid the taxes which had been levied and assessed upon [57]*57it, as required by section 325, of the Code of Civil Procedure, to establish adverse possession. Yet there was a verdict in his favor, which the court below, on'motion for a new trial, refused to set aside. This was error. (C. P. R. R. Co. v. Shackelford, 63 Cal. 261.)

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 P. 747, 65 Cal. 56, 1884 Cal. LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/webb-v-clark-cal-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack