Liurette

Liurette v. Hiller

Good Law
139 Cal. 729
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 18, 1903S. F. No. 2692California454 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Angellotti, J.

This is an action for damages. The complaint alleges that the defendants unlawfully, and with force, and against the will of plaintiff, ejected him from certain land and premises occupied by him in the business of retail liquor and tobacco dealer, and without his consent took and carried off and converted to their own use all his goods, wares, and merchandise, to his damage in the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, and have ever since said time kept him so *730 ejected from said premises, and that his business has been wholly destroyed to his further damage in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars. The answer denies these allegations.

The action was tried by jury, and a verdict was returned for plaintiff in the sum of five hundred dollars, upon which judgment was entered. On motion for a new trial, the trial court required plaintiff, as a condition precedent to the denial of the motion, to remit two hundred dollars, and, this having been done, the judgment was reduced by deducting therefrom two hundred dollars, and the motion for a new trial was denied. Defendants appeal from the judgment and order denying a new trial.

The appeal is apparently entirely destitute of merit. But two…

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.