Feliz

Feliz v. Feliz

Good Law
105 Cal. 1·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1099·38 P. 521
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 5, 1894No. 15250California1,391 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

The plaintiffs recovered judgment against the defendants for possession of certain lands in the city of Santa Cruz, and a motion for a new trial having been made by the defendants, was granted by the court “ upon the sole ground ” that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. From this order the plaintiffs have appealed.

The lands in controversy are included in the tract granted by Congress to the town of Santa Cruz July 23, 1886, and were conveyed by the town to Juan Jose Feliz, March 4, 1867. Juan Jose Feliz died intestate in June, 1871, leaving several heirs at law, but administration *4 upon his estate was not had until April, 1885, when the defendant, Frank Feliz, was appointed administrator. Miguel Feliz, one of the sons of Juan Jose Feliz, lived for many years on a portion of the premises in controversy, claiming them as his own, and, after his father’s death, went into occupancy and possession of the entire tract of land in controversy, and held possession of the same until July, 1885, when he was ejected therefrom by the defendants. The plaintiffs are children of Miguel, and their title to the premises is derived by means of conveyances from him.…

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.