Stufflebeem

Stufflebeem v. Hickman

Good Law
1898 Cal. LEXIS 1074·6 Cal. Unrep. 17·53 P. 438
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 31, 1898Sac. No. 410California747 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This action was brought in a justice’s court to recover damages for trespass upon real property, by entry thereon with cattle, horses and other stock, and depasturing the land from May 1, 1893, to November 27, 1893. The cause was, upon the coming in of a sworn answer showing that the trial would involve the issue of possession to the locus in quo, transferred to the superior court for trial. A jury trial was had and a verdict rendered in favor of defendants, upon which judgment was entered for costs. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. Defendants A. W. Hickman and Henry Mentz answered jointly, and, among other things, admitted the ownership by plaintiffs of the two sections of land described in the complaint, to wit, sections 27 and 33 in township 20 S., range 29 E., Mt. D. B. and M., county of Tulare, state of California. They denied, however, that plaintiffs were in the possession thereof, or entitled to the possession thereof, during the period when the alleged trespasses were charged to have occurred. On the contrary, they averred that plaintiffs leased said lands -to one John McKiernan, who was in *18 possession thereof…

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.