Goodrich v. Landigham (1873) · DecisionDepot

Goodrich v. Landigham

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 3,802Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that neither a substantial fence nor residence on the premises is a prerequisite for establishing actual possession of land. Furthermore, the court will not disturb a judgment based on conflicting testimony regarding possession.

Issues

Whether a good and substantial fence or residence is required for actual possession of land.
Whether the court should interfere with a judgment based on conflicting testimony regarding possession.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Neither a good and substantial fence nor a residence upon the premises was necessary to a peaceable and actual possession of the land.”

“It is well settled that there may be an actual possession without fences or inclosure of any kind.”

“upon the question of the plaintiff’s possession the testimony was conflicting, and in such case we do not interfere with the judgment of the Court below.”

Synopsis

Possession of Land. — Neither a good and substantial fence nor a residence upon land are necessary to a peaceable and actual possession of the same, so as to enable the possessor to maintain forcible entry and detainer.

Specifications in Statement. — A specification in a statement, that the evidence does not show that the land in controversy was inclosed, or that the plaintiff, resided on it, is not sufficient to present the question, whether the evidence showed such possession in the plaintiff as would justify a verdict in his favor, in an action to recover possession of land.

By the Court: The only specification found in the statement on motion for new trial’ is “ that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict, there being no evidence even upon the part of the plaintiff showing that the land in controversy was actually inclosed by a good or substantial fence, or that the plaintiff resided upon it at the time of the entry of the defendant.”

Neither a good and substantial fence nor a residence upon the premises was necessary to a peaceable and actual possession of the land. Fences are a means by which the possession of land may be taken and held, but are not the only means. It is well settled that there may be an actual possession without fences or inclosure of any kind.

The specification does not therefore present the question whether the plaintiff had shown such possession in himself as would justify a verdict in his favor.

But aside from this, upon the question of the plaintiff’s possession the testimony was conflicting, and in such case we do not interfere with the judgment of the Court below.

Judgment and order affirmed; remittitur forthwith.

Goodrich v. Landigham

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief