General

ELISHA PALMER, Appellant, v. JAMES COOK, Respondent

1 Cal. Unrep. 25·Supreme Court of California·1856·CA

I concur: Terry, J.

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

ELISHA PALMER, Appellant, v. JAMES COOK, Respondent. No. 1047; May 12, 1856. Ejectment — Nature of Action. — In a suit of ejectment, denial of judgment to plaintiff on the ground of his not having the possession of the property shows the court to be unaware of the nature of the action. APPEAL from Fifteenth Judicial District, Trinity County. W. W. Upton for appellant; J. C. Burch for respondent. [MAJORITY — MURRAY, C. J.] 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.