Flint v. Lovdall

California Supreme Court Dec 5, 1898 No. Sac. No. 343Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence of an agreement between neighbors to establish a boundary line and subsequent possession by the defendants was admissible to determine who held possession at the time of the alleged forcible entry. The court further held that the jury instruction regarding this evidence was proper and that the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an agreement between the parties to establish a boundary line.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that they could consider the boundary agreement as evidence of possession.
Whether the verdict was justified by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence tended to show that the parties had by agreement fixed the location of their dividing line, and that defendants took possession of the disputed strip with the knowledge and consent of plaintiff.”

“It was proper for the jury to consider the said agreement as a circumstance tending to show who was in fact in possession of the land at the time of the alleged entry.”

Synopsis

Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer—Peaceable Possession of Defendants—Evidence—Agreement upon Boundary.—In an action for a forcible and. unlawful detainer, in which the defendants pleaded quiet and peaceable possession of the demanded premises for more than one year continuously next before the commencement of the action, where it appeared that tne plaintiff and the defendants owned adjoining farms and the controversy involved the location of a disputed boundary between them, evidence is admissible for the defendants to show that a survey locating the dispul ed line was agreed to several years before the action was brought, and that defendants then took possession of the disputed strip under that agreement, with the knowledge and consent of plaintiff, and had maintained the possession thereof until the action was brought.

Id.—Question for Jury—Instruction.—It was proper for the jury to consider the agreement testified to, as a circumstance tending to show who was in fact in possession of the land at the time of the alleged entry; and the court might properly state the evidence in relation thereto; and instruct the jury that if they should believe from all the evidence that the defendants and not the plaintiff were in possession of the land, or were exercising acts of ownership over it inconsistent with plaintiff’s peaceable possession at the time of the alleged forcible entry, their verdict should be for the defendants.

BELCHER, C. This is an action to recover possession of a strip of land in Yolo county, described as being about seventy-two feet wide and two thousand two hundred feet long. The complaint was filed February 13, 1893, and contains two counts, the first alleging a forcible entry upon the land by defendants on January 24, 1893, and the second alleging an entry upon the land on the same day, and a forcible detention thereof.

The answer of defendants denies all of the material averments of the complaint, and alleges that “they have been in the quiet and peaceable possession of the premises mentioned in the complaint for more than one whole year continuously next before the commencement of the action, and that their interest therein [553]has not ended or determined, and that by reason thereof plaintiff is barred from asserting any claim, or complaining in any way of or concerning any forcible entry, or forcible detainer, or unlawful entry or detainer.”

The cause was tried before a jury, and the verdict and judgment entered thereon were in favor of defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, and his motion was denied. From that order this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellant contends that the court erred in admitting certain evidence; and in giving a certain instruction to the jury, and that the verdict was not justified by the evidence.

It appears that plaintiff and defendants owned adjoining farms, and that the land in controversy was a strip along the dividing line between the farms, as to the ownership of which there had been some controversy.

To make out his case the plaintiff introduced evidence showing that the land in dispute had been in his possession and used by him partly for raising alfalfa and partly for pasturage, and had been inclosed with other land by a good substantial fence, for more than six years prior to January 24, 1893, when the defendants, in the absence of plaintiff and without his knowledge, removed the fence along the south line of said strip to the north' line thereof, and there put it up in a substantial manner.

On the other hand, T. B. Lovdal testified for defendants that he and his brother had had possession of the said land for the last three or four years; that he had exercised dominion over the land by going on it, keeping the levees up, cutting the timber off it, keeping others from using it, and preventing Mr. Flint from using it. The witness was then asked whether or not three or four years ago he had an agreement with Mr. Flint in relation to this particular piece of land, whereby he obtained possession and had since had possession of it. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the question, on the ground that it was irrelevant, but the court said: “I think he caff prove he went into possession under that agreement,” and overruled the objection.

Flint v. Lovdall

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief