Garrison v. Sampson

Citations

• 15 Cal. 93

Syllabus

<p>A complaint in ejectment, with general averments in the usual form, is sufficient, without a specific averment of the facts. To set out the facts connected with the title, and the wrongful acts of the defendant, would produce confusion, without benefit.</p> <p>Under the allegation of ouster, a holding over by the defendant may be shown.</p> <p>Merely going on waste, uninclosed public land, and building or occupying a house and corral, and even subsequently cutting hay on part of the land, does not give a party any claim to or possession of the whole tract of one hundred and sixty acres. The case would be different if the party claimed and entered under the Possessory Act of this State, and pursued the necessary steps prescribed by it; or, probably, if he had made his entry under the pre-emption laws of the United States.</p> <p>Whore, in such case—there being no claim under the Possessory Act, or the preemption laws of the United States—plaintiff claims one hundred and sixty acres by force of his prior possession, and a contract or consent on the part of defendant, whom he let into possession, to hold the premises for him, or subject to his order, the judgment cannot be in favor of plaintiff for the whole tract, but only for the small part on which the house and corral were situated, and of which plaintiff was in the actual occupancy—there being no proof, except defendant's general consent, as above named, that defendant agreed to hold the whole tract for plaintiff.</p>