Miller v. Myers

Citations

• 46 Cal. 535

Syllabus

<p>Ousteb of Tenant in Common.— If a tenant in common in possession, refuses, on a proper demand, to admit his cotenantinto possession, this refusal constitutes an ouster, and in ejectment dispenses with the necessity of further proof on that point.</p> <p>Idem.—An adverse holding and claim of title by a tenant in common, do not of themselves constitute an ouster of a cotenant.</p> <p>Denial of Title in Answeb is Ousteb.— In ejectment by a tenant in common against his cotenant, a denial in the answer of the plaintiff’s title and right of entry, is equivalent to an ouster; but an ouster established in this manner relates only to the commencement of the action.</p> <p>Damages in Ejectment.—If there is no proof of an ouster, in ejectment, except a denial of the plaintiff’s title and right of entry in the answer the plaintiff can recover damages only from the date of the institution of the suit.</p> <p>Pboof of Ousteb of Tenant in Common. — An ouster by one tenant in common of his cotenant, cannot be inferred from the facts alone, that the tenant in common was in the adverse possession, claiming adversely to his cotenant, when there has been no demand to be let into possession. Possession of one Tenant in Common. - The tenant in common out of possession, has a right to assume that the possession of his cotenant is his possession until informed to the contrary, either by express notice or by acts and declarations, which may possibly be equivalent to notice. Becoveby of Bents and Pbofits in Ejectment. — In ejectment, the value of the use and occupation of the demanded premises can be recovered only in the form of damages.</p>