Raffetto v. Fiori
JOHN RAFFETTO and G. B. RAFFETTO v. ERCOLI FIORI
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
By the Court:
The plaintiffs were not in possession of the premises in controversy, in May, 1873, when the action was brought. The fifth finding is, that the defendants were then in possession, and had been so in possession ever since August, 1870. The action is not brought to recover the possession of the premises, but is an action of trespass. The plaintiffs had judgment for one dollar, and also perpetually enjoining the defendants from working the premises or removing the gold or earth therefrom. "Where the plaintiff is actually dis-seized of the land, and the defendant is in the adverse possession thereof, an action of this character cannot be maintained.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Cited by
- Whittaker v. Otto Civ. 8079 · 1967-02-20
- Alechoff v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Corp. Docket No. 4437. · 1927-06-17
- Lightner Mining Co. v. Lane Sac. No. 1657. · 1911-12-27
- Flood v. E. L. Goldstein Co. S.F. No. 4766. · 1910-08-27
- Dunker v. the Field and Tule Club Civ. No. 390. · 1907-10-02
- Heilbron v. Heinlen No. 11566 · 1887-05-28
- Felton v. Justice No. 5084 · 1876-07-01