Grady v. Early

Citations

• 18 Cal. 108

Syllabus

<p>The mining claim in this case, being a claim on a river bar, is sufficiently described in the complaint. See facts.</p> <p>Where, in a civil case, Taylor, a juror, had been accepted by both parties, and subsequently, during the examination of another juror, the fact came out that there had been a former trial of forcible entry and detainer for the same ground now in dispute, and Taylor then of his own accord stated that the title to the ground had been spoken of in the forcible entry case, and that his mind was made up as to the title; and the plaintiffs thereupon challenged Taylor for cause, and the Court excused Mm, defendants resisting, on the ground that it was too late: Held, that there is no error; that where the Court below exercised its discretion in excusing a juror to attain justice, this Court would interfere with great reluctance.</p> <p>In ejectment for mining claims and for damages, defendants, entry being laid October 31st, 1859, and the suit brought in March, 1860, plaintiff called as a witness W., who was one of the owners of the claims from the fall of 1858 to Eebruary, 1860, when he sold to plaintiff, dut-ing which time the damages accrued: Held, that the witness was competent as against the objection that he was interested, because a -recovery by plaintiff would not necessarily give a right of action to the witness for damages accruing- before the conveyance and recovery ; and the record of such recovery would not be conclusive, if any proof of Ms title.</p> <p>In ejectment, plaintiffs may rely on prior possession, and the legal title is not necessarily involved. And a judgment in favor of plaintiff, even on the title, is conclusive, at most, of the title of plaintiff only, and not-of his grantor.</p>