Jones v. Shay (1875) · DecisionDepot

Jones v. Shay

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 4862Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the motion for nonsuit was properly denied because the plaintiff, as a tenant at will, possessed sufficient interest in the premises to maintain an action for forcible entry in his own name.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff had sufficient possession of the premises to maintain an action for forcible entry.
Whether the defendant properly preserved the issue of excessive damages for appellate review.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plaintiff was in the actual and peaceable possession of the premises in controversy, not merely as the servant of another, but as a tenant at will; and had therefore such a possession as would enable him to maintain the action”

Synopsis

Eoboible Entby and Detainee.—A person who is in the actual and peaceable possession of land, as the tenant at will of another, may maintain an action of forcible entry and detainer, if forcibly dispossessed.

Tenant at Will.—If the owner of land permits another to occupy land without any lease or agreement to pay rent, and such other merely takes care of it for the owner, he is a tenant at will.

Eeactice as to Review oe Evidence.—If the proof does not warrant the damages awarded in an action of forcible entry, the defendant, if he wishes to have the question reviewed, should either move for a new trial on that ground, or specify in his bill of exceptions in what particulars the evidence did not justify the decision.

By the Court: The motion for nonsuit was properly denied. The plaintiff’s proof shows that at the time of the forcible entry complained of the plaintiff was in the actual and peaceable possession of the premises in controversy, not merely as the servant of another, but as a tenant at will; and had therefore such a possession as would enable him to maintain the action in his own name. If the proof did not warrant the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff, the defendant should either have moved for a new trial on that ground or have specified in his bill of exceptions in what particulars the evidence did not justify the decision in this respect, and have brought up the evidence on this point. But the defendant has done neither.

Judgment affirmed.

Jones v. Shay

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief