Summary
admitting the allegation that "Hazardous chemicals released at the Plant have entered the environment and migrated through the subsurface soil and groundwater into Plaintiffs' neighborhood and under the Goshen High School . . . ."
Summary of this case from Hostetler v. Johnson Controls, Inc.Opinion
Department Two
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
Jarret T. Richards, John T. Boyce, R. M. Dillard, and Chas. E. Huse, for Appellant.
McNulta & Oglesby, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Thornton, J. Morrison, C. J., and Myrick, J., concurred.
OPINION
THORNTON, Judge
Action for a forcible detainer. There was no error in admitting in evidence the lease to plaintiff. It was admissible in connection with plaintiff's former possession to show the extent of such possession.
In an action for a forcible detainer the plaintiff is entitled to recover on showing the forcible detainer, and that he is entitled to the possession at the time of such forcible detainer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1172.) The lease was admissible also to show that plaintiff was entitled to the possession.
The objections of plaintiff to certain questions asked by defendant of witness Mullaney were properly sustained, as was also the objection to a question asked plaintiff. These questions related to matters which were entirely irrelevant to the issues to be tried.
There was evidence tending to prove the allegations of the complaint.
It is urged that the court below, in giving its decision, stated no [8 P. 3] conclusion of law. The record shows that after finding the facts the court adds this direction: "Let judgment be entered in accordance with the foregoing findings in favor of plaintiff for restitution of said premises, and for his costs and disbursements in this action."
This, in our judgment, is in substance a conclusion of law stated by the court that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the premises sued for. It would be yielding too far to mere form to hold that the above is not a conclusion of law.
Judgment and order affirmed.