Reed

Reed v. Jourdain

Good Law
1 Cal. 101
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 15, 1850California424 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hastings, J.

By the Court,

The respondent on the first day of September, A.D. 1849, caused a citation to be issued, as is contended, to the appellants, which was returned “ executed,” demanding redress against them as trespassers on a certain piece of ground in the Pueblo de San José.

On the 8th day of September, the court rendered the following sentence :—“ It appearing from the documents of the par- “ ties that his (the said Reed) complaint is based on recorded “ original papers, therefore the said Jourdain & Phister must “ desist from further trespassing on said lands and tenements in “ said Pueblo de San José ; and the said James F. Reed is *102 “ hereby put fully in possession of the said property described, “ and to be found on record, and conveyed by Manuel Pinto to “ said Reed.”

It appears that the appellants protested against the decision as contrary- to law, and appealed to John T, Richardson, judge of First Instance of said district, for redress, before whom affidavits were made, and testimony taken, and proceedings had in the nature of perpetuating the testimony of witnesses, and much other confusion ensued.

The 26th section of the act of February’ 28th, 1850, provides, that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.