Moore v. Goslin
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Our statute of forcible entries and detainers provides a rdmedy for an unlawful entry, as well as a forcible entry, and the policy of it is doubtless to avoid nice distinctions as to what constitutes force in an entry upon lands.
The plaintiffs had been in possession for more than two years ; the premises had been improved by them, and, at the time of the entry of the defendants, which was in their absence, the land was in express charge of their agents ; Meld, conclusive evidence of actual possession.
Heydenfeldt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.
Our statute of forcible entries and detainer, provides a remedy for an unlawful entry as well as a forcible entry and the policy of it is doubtless to avoid nice distinctions as to what constitutes force in an entry upon lauds.
The case here presented, is therefore barren and naked of objections. The defendant entered into the land in controversy when, according to the evidence, it had been for more than two years in possession of the plaintiffs, had been improved by them, and at the time of the entry, in their absence, was in express charge of their agents. There could not be legally any more conclusive evidence of actual possession.
Let the judgment be affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)