Hicks v. Whiteside

Citations

• 23 Cal. 404

Syllabus

<p>A declaration of location, under the Possessory Act of this State, described the tract of land as being in Township 21; and also gave the names of the land-claims adjoining it on its different sides. The tract was in Township 22: held, that this mistake did not vitiate the declaration, and that it was admissible in evidence.</p> <p>A., a witness for plaintiff, when cross-examined, was asked questions by defendant, which, on plaintiff’s objection, were erroneously ruled out by the Court. Defendant afterwards called the same witness, and asked the same questions, which were answered without objection: held, that the judgment would not be reversed by reason of the error committed by the Court, as defendant had suffered no injury thereby.</p> <p>In an action to recover possesion of a tract of land, claimed by plaintiff under the Possessory Act of this State, evidence tending to show, that at the time plaintiff filed his declaration, he knew that the land in controversy or any portion of it was claimed by defendant, is relevant.</p> <p>The two hundred dollars of improvements, pertaining to the realty, required by the fourth section of the Possessory Act, must be made on the land claimed, before an action can be commenced to recover possession of the same.</p>