Hussman v. Wilke

Citations

• 50 Cal. 250

Syllabus

<p>Nonsuit in Ejectment.—If a landlord is made a joint defendant with his tenant in an action of ejectment, and there is no proof on the trial that the landlord was in possession of any part of the demanded premises at the time of the commencement of the action, the landlord is entitled to a nonsuit.</p> <p>Estoppel in Ejectment.—If the defendant in ejectment entered into possession of the demanded premises by permission of the plaintiff, he is estopped, while remaining in possession, from denying the title of the plaintiff.</p> <p>Idem.—The above rule is not defeated by the facts, that the defendant found a third person in possession of the premises who held them as the plaintiff’s agent for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the defendant agreed with him to take possession of and hold the premises for the plaintiff, and that to carry out the agreement, the defendant took from such third person a written lease of the premises, and upon the delivery of the lease took possession of the premises from such third person.</p> <p>Oonteabiction op Wbiungs by Pabol Testimony.—The rule that written instruments cannot he changed or contradicted by parol testimony, is confined to controversies between the parties to such instruments or those claiming under them.</p>