Howell

Howell v. Burlingame

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 944·90 Cal. 379·27 P. 300
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 30, 1891No. 14083California264 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Belcher, J.

— This is an action to recover damages for alleged willful and malicious trespasses on real property of the plaintiff.

*380 The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the findings were, that the defendants, “ wantonly and maliciously, unlawfully and with force,” committed the trespasses complained of, and therebj'- damaged the plaintiff in the sum of eight hundred dollars, and that two hundred dollars more should be allowed as exemplary damages. Judgment -was accordingly entered against both defendants for one thousand dollars and costs.

The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and have appealed from the judgment and order.

The only contention on the part of appellants is, that the evidence was insufficient to justify the findings as against the defendant Marsh. It is said: “There is no evidence whatever to sustain the finding that Marsh wantonly or maliciously trespassed upon the property.” And again: “ The complaint alleges that Marsh committed the trespass at the instigation of Burlingame. The facts are, that Burlingame committed the trespass himself, and that Marsh had nothing whatever to do with it.”

We have carefully read over all the evidence…

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.