Burgel v. Prisser
Citations
- 89 Cal. 70
- 26 P. 787
- 1891 Cal. LEXIS 774
Syllabus
<p>Ejectment — Estates of Deceased Persons — Inheritance of Community Property — Rights of Administrator. — Where one half of land is inherited from the father, and two thirds of the other half from the mother, whose estate is being administered upon, the heirs cannot, pending the administration of the mother’s estate, recover in ejectment the portion inherited from her as against her administrator, who is entitled to the possession of the whole of her estate, and they can only maintain a right of possession as tenants in common with the administrator, hy reason of inheritance from the father.</p> <p>Id. —Pleading—Answer —Evidence — Right of Possession of Administrator. — A right of possession in a defendant in ejectment, as administrator of an estate, may be proved under denials in the answer, that the plaintiffs are the owners or entitled to the possession of the demanded premises.</p> <p>Id. — Tenancy in Common. — In an action of ejectment between tenants in common, it is proper for the court to ascertain and settle the respective interests of the parties.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that “overwhelming” evidence of guilt rendered any erroneous admission of Rule 404 (b) evidence harmless, particularly where the defendant admitted that he shot victim
- holding that a prior aggravated assault had no real probative value where the defendant admitted shooting the victim but claimed self-defense
- concluding that the appellant’s testimony “opened the door” to evidence of his other felony convictions, “regardless [of] whether his character was implicated”
- holding that the erroneous admission of the defendant’s aggravated assault conviction under OCGA § 24- 4-404 (b) was harmless because there was substantial evidence that the defendant intentionally and maliciously killed the victim rather than acting in self-defense
- noting that “overwhelming” evidence of guilt rendered erroneous admission of Rule 404 (b) evidence harmless, and finding harmless error where defendant testified at trial that he shot victim
- noting that the trial court limiting the appellant’s impeachment of a witness did not affect his substantial rights because “some of the [witness’s] testimony was beneficial to the defense”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McFarland
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.