gno.law

Pico v. Phelan

California Supreme Court · No. 12361 · 1888-09-22 · Published · 77 Cal. 86 · 19 P. 186 · 1888 Cal. LEXIS 628

PIO PICO v. THOMAS PHELAN

Area
civil
Panel
Hayne (author)

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 — Hayne

Hayne, C.

Action to recover rent of certain real property for the 1882. It was admitted that there was no agreement for that year. The theory of plaintiff was that defendant was formerly his tenant and held over. The court found that there was no relation of landlord and tenant between the parties; and we think that the evidence shows that the possession of defendant was adverse to the plaintiff. There was no error in law or abuse of discretion.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Cited by