Hawkins v. Hancock (1864) · DecisionDepot

Hawkins v. Hancock

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

California Supreme Court Dec 6, 1864 No. No. 228Published

Before: Currey, Rhodes, Sanderson, Sawyer, Sitafter

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff established a valid possessory title to the disputed lot and that the defendants' claim of prior entry was invalid due to the deed's scope and the defendants' abandonment of the property.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to vest possessory title in the plaintiff.
Whether the defendants' deed included the premises in question.
Whether the defendants abandoned the property prior to the plaintiff's entry.
Whether the court failed to pass on all issues.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court, on evidence which we deem sufficient, found all the facts necessary to vest a good possessory title in the plaintiff to the lot sued for”

“Palmer’s deed to Hancock did not, as the court very properly held, include the premises demanded”

“if Palmer once had possession of the lot, he and his associate Stickney both abandoned it two years at least prior do the plaintiff’s entry.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from Tenth Judicial District, Sierra County.

SITAFTER, J. The court, on evidence which we deem sufficient, found all the facts necessary to vest a good possessory title in the plaintiff to the lot sued for; and further [161]found 'the ouster and unlawful withholding complained of. The defendants claimed under a prior entry by Palmer. But Palmer’s deed to Hancock did not, as the court very properly held, include the premises demanded; and furthermore the record shows that, if Palmer once had possession of the lot, he and his associate Stickney both abandoned it two years at least prior do the plaintiff’s entry. The objection that the court did not pass on all the issues is not well founded. They are all responded to in effect in the findings.

Judgment affirmed.

We concur: Sanderson, C. J.; Sawyer, J.; Rhodes, J.; Currey, J.

Hawkins v. Hancock

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief