Gray v. Collins

Citations

• 42 Cal. 152

Syllabus

<p>Peaceable and Actual Possession under Forcible Entry Law.— In a forcible entry case, where it appeared that the property was a city lot; that plaintiff built a substantial fence, which, with the house and fence of a neighbor on one side, made a complete inclosure, and planted two dozen ornamental trees along two sides of it; and that this state of things continued two months, when defendants entered; held, that the plaintiff was in the peaceable and actual possession of the lot, within the meaning of the forcible entry law, without residing or having a house upon it.</p> <p>A Fence Alone as Showing Actual Possession.—Residence upon premises is not indispensable to their actual possession, nor is cultivation necessary, nor improvement, as contradistinguished from the erection of fences or substantial barriers, marking the line of the premises over which control is asserted.</p> <p>Cultivation oe City Lot—Ornamental Trees.—The erection of a substantial fence and planting of ornamental trees around a city lot amount to actual possession and cultivation of it, as appropriate to such lot as the seasonable plowing and sowing of agricultural lands would be, and equally significant as acts manifesting control over the premises.</p> <p>What is a “Forcible” Entry?—The forcible entry statute now in force (Stats. 1865-6, p. 768) was evidently drawn to avoid nice distinctions as to the amount of force necessary to constitute an entry a forcible one within its intent.</p> <p>“ Circumstances oe Terror” making an Entry Forcible.—Where a large number of men were employed to take possession of premises in the possession of another, though he had no house on them, and was not personally present, and they entered hurriedly at daylight, tore down one fence, and put up another and a shanty, and fired off a pistol shot to celebrate its completion; held, that there were sufficient “ circumstances of terror ” to make the entry a forcible one.</p>