Conner

Conner v. Bludworth

Good Law
54 Cal. 635
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 6,746California382 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentmyrick, J.

Plaintiff alleges that on July 17th, 1878, he held and was in possession of certain lands, describing them, and of the growing crop of wheat thereon; that while he was in the possession and entitled to the possession of said land and growing crop, defendants, against the will of plaintiff, willfully and unlawfully entered into and upon said land, and took possession of said growing crop, and without the consent of plaintiff and against his will did unlawfully cut said crop, and take and keep possession thereof; that plaintiff was and is the owner and entitled to the possession of said crop; that defendants detain the same, and refuse, after demand, to deliver the same to plaintiff, to plaintiff’s damage, etc.

Plaintiff also states that he was in possession of said land and crop, and entitled thereto, by virtue of certain instruments of writing, of record in the office of the County Recorder of Kern County, stating dates, books, and pages of record.

Defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it *636 does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained; and plaintiff failing to amend, judgment went for defendants, and plaintiff…

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.