Palmer v. Cook

California Supreme Court May 12, 1856 No. No. 1047Published

Before: Murray, Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain an action of ejectment or a possessory action if they were not in possession of the premises at the time the action commenced.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff must be in possession of the premises to maintain an action of ejectment or possessory action.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plaintiff was not in possession of the premises sued for at the time of the commencement of his action, and therefore not entitled to recover.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Fifteenth Judicial District, Trinity County.

MURRAY, C. J. — This was an action of ejectment or possessory action under the statute. On the trial of the cause the court below found that the plaintiff was not in possession of the premises sued for at the time of the commencement of his action, and therefore not entitled to recover. According to our recollection of the law, if he had been in possession, he would have had no right, and certainly no necessity, to bring suit.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

I concur: Terry, J.

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)

Related research