From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Goslin

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1855
5 Cal. 266 (Cal. 1855)

Summary

In Moore et al. v. Goslin (1855) 5 Cal. 266, the Supreme Court held that "[t]here could not be legally any more conclusive evidence of actual possession," where the land "had been for more than two years in possession of the plaintiffs, had been improved by them, and at the time of the entry, in their absence, was in express charge of their agents."

Summary of this case from Cheviot Hills Sports Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Opinion

         Appeal from the County Court of Contra Costa County.

         COUNSEL:

         Latham & Stanley, for Appellant.

          John Currey, for Respondents.


         JUDGES: Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         Our statute of forcible entries and detainers, provides a remedy for an unlawful entry as well as a forcible entry, and the policy of it is doubtless to avoid nice distinctions as to what constitutes force in an entry upon lands.

         The case here presented is therefore barren and naked of objections. The defendant entered into the land in controversy when, according to the evidence, it had been for more than two years in possession of the plaintiffs, had been improved by them, and at the time of the entry, in their absence, was in express charge of their agents. There could not be legally any more conclusive evidence of actual possession.

         Let the judgment be affirmed.

See Frazier v. Hanlon, post, 159. See 16 Wis. 578, 602; 24 Wis. 405.


Summaries of

Moore v. Goslin

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1855
5 Cal. 266 (Cal. 1855)

In Moore et al. v. Goslin (1855) 5 Cal. 266, the Supreme Court held that "[t]here could not be legally any more conclusive evidence of actual possession," where the land "had been for more than two years in possession of the plaintiffs, had been improved by them, and at the time of the entry, in their absence, was in express charge of their agents."

Summary of this case from Cheviot Hills Sports Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
Case details for

Moore v. Goslin

Case Details

Full title:Henry M. Moore,&Alexander P. Moore, Respondents, v. James F. Goslin…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1855

Citations

5 Cal. 266 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

Polack v. McGrath

The counterpart in the present case is Frazier v. Hanlon , 5 Cal. 156-160. This case is affirmed in House v.…

Cheviot Hills Sports Center, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

(House v. Keiser (1857) 8 Cal. 499, 501.) In Moore et al. v. Goslin (1855) 5 Cal. 266, the Supreme Court held…