Adams v. Helbing

California Supreme Court May 24, 1895 No. No. 15453Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a finding of ownership and possession in a forcible entry and detainer action is sufficient to support a judgment for forcible detainer, and that a failure to find on all issues does not render a decision against law if one sufficient ground for relief is established. Additionally, the court held that specifications of error stating only what the evidence shows are insufficient for appellate review.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings were so defective as to render the decision against law for failing to explicitly state the plaintiff was in actual and peaceable possession.
Whether the specifications of error regarding the sufficiency of the evidence were legally adequate for review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the complaint, as in the present instance, sets forth two or more grounds for relief, either of which is sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a finding upon one of such issues is sufficient”

“It is not necessary that the specification should state what the evidence does show. Such a statement is insufficient if standing alone, and surplusage if joined to a proper specification.”

Synopsis

New Trial—Decision Against Law—Failure to Find upon Material Issue—Review upon Appeal.—When the court rendering judgment fails to find upon a material issue, the decision is against law, and may be reviewed upon appeal from an order granting or refusing a new trial.

Id.—Omission to Find upon Issue Rendered Immaterial.—Where the complaint sets forth two or more grounds for relief, either of which is sufficient to support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, a finding upon one of such issues is sufficient to sustain a judgment, and a failure to find upon the other issue does not render the decision against law, and is not ground for a new trial.

Id.—Forcible Entry and Detainer—Sufficiency of Finding.—Where a complaint charges both a forcible entry and a forcible detainer a finding that the plaintiff was the owner and in possession of the property should be construed to import that he was in the actual and peaceable possession thereof at the time when he was forcibly removed therefrom, and that he was entitled to the possession at the time of the forcible detainer; and the finding being sufficient to support a judgment for forcible detainer, it is immaterial whether it is sufficient to support a judgment upon the ground of forcible entry.

Id.—Review of Evidence—Insufficient Specifications.—Specifications of the insufficiency of the evidence which are merely brief statements of what the evidence shows are insufficient.

Id.—Surplusage—Statement of What Evidence Shows.—It is not necessary that a specification in a statement on motion for a new trial should state what the evidence does show, and such a statement is insufficient if standing alone, and surplusage if joined to a proper specification.

Belcher, C. This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

It is alleged in the complaint that on the twentieth day of August, 1889, the plaintiff was, and had been for five days previous thereto, the owner and in the actual [300]possession of a certain building, situated on the south side of McAllister street, in San Francisco, and known as number 1911 McAllister street, and that on the day named, “ while the plaintiff was in peaceable and actual possession thereof, the defendant unlawfully, violently, and without cause ejected the plaintiff and his tenant of said building then and there being, and took possession of and has ever since held .possession of said building forcibly and against the will of plaintiff.”

The answer “ denies that the said plaintiff had been for five days previous to August 20, 1889, or is now, or ever has been, in the actual or any other possession of the premises in said second amended complaint described; denies that on the twentieth day of August, 1889, or at any time, or at all, upon said building and premises, while plaintiff was in the peaceable or actual possession thereof, or otherwise, or at all, the defendant unlawfully or violently, or without cause, ejected plaintiff or his tenant of said building, or took possession of, or has ever since held possession of, said building forcibly or against the will of plaintiff, or otherwise, except as hereinafter set forth.”

The answer then alleges that, prior to the commencement of the action, plaintiff and defendant entered into -a contract for the erection and construction of a building on the land of the plaintiff on the south side of McAllister street, and known as No. 1911 McAllister street, in San Francisco, and “ that on or about the twentieth day of August, 1889, while defendant was engaged in the erection and construction of said building in pursuance of said contract, and before the completion of said building, the said plaintiff unlawfully and illegally entered in and upon the said building and attempted to eject the defendant and oust him from the possession thereof, and prevent the performance of the said contract by said defendant; that defendant was compelled to, and did, oust and eject the said plaintiff from' the said premises, using no more force than was reasonably necessary.”

[301]

Adams v. Helbing

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief