Henderson v. Allen

Citations

• 23 Cal. 519

Syllabus

<p>It is doubtful whether in an action for a forcible entry, or a forcible detainer, the title of the premises can be involved in the controversy. But where the action is against a tenant, for unlawfully holding over lands after the termination of a lease, the title may become involved, in some cases; and in such cases the statute authorizing the removal of actions from a Justice’s Court to a District Court, would be applicable.</p> <p>In an action commfeheed before a Justice of the Peace, under the Forcible Entry and Detainer jjiW an answer which denies generally the allegations of the complaint, is sufficient.</p> <p>A, who claimed to beXin possession of a tract of coal-bearing land, made a verbal agreement with B/& C, by which they were to prospect for coal until they struck a particular seam, or ledge, and before they struck this ledge they were to do all theSwork and have two-thirds of the claim; but after the ledge was struck, the work was to be prosecuted by the parties jointly, A to bear one-third of the expenses, and B & C two-thirds: held, that this agreement did not create the relation of landlord and tenant between A & B and C, but that it made them tenants in common, or partners in mining; and that the action of unlawful detainer was not the proper remedy for A, if excluded from the premises by B & C.</p>