Shaeffer v. Matzen

California Supreme Court Feb 25, 1884Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises because the plaintiff held legal title and the defendant possessed no claim beyond naked possession.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises against a defendant with only naked possession.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff had the legal title, and was entitled to the possession of said premises.”

Synopsis

Ejectment.—The Legal Title Being Opposed Only by a Mere Naked Possession, the holder of such title is entitled to the possession.

By the COURT. The defendant Stillinger does not appear to have had any claim to the demanded premises beyond what his naked possession gave him; and at the time of the commencement of this action the plaintiff had the legal title, and was entitled to the possession of said premises. This is sufficiently apparent, although somewhat obscured by the finding of a great number of irrelevant facts.

Judgment affirmed.

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