Moore v. Moore

Citations

• 4 Cal. Unrep. 190
• 34 P. 90
• 1893 Cal. LEXIS 1108

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment—Specification of Error.—In an action in the nature of ejectment, a specification of error that “the evidence showed that defendant M. was not in possession of said premises, or of any part thereof, at the time of the commencement of this action,” is insufficient.</p> <p>Ejectment—Possession—Evidence.—In an action in the nature of ejectment, where the evidence tends to prove that defendants were in possession of the premises when the action was commenced, an an, swer denying plaintiff’s title and right of possession is sufficient evidence of ouster.</p> <p>Cotenancy—License by One Tenant to Enter.—A tenant in common cannot, as against his cotenant, give a license to a third person to enter on the land held in common.</p> <p>Instructions.—An Exception Beading, “To Said Oral Instructions, and each and every part thereof, and to the giving thereof by the court, the defendant then and there duly excepted,” is too general.</p> <p>Ejectment by Widow to Becover Homestead.—In ejectment by a widow against her husband’s administrator for premises which had been set apart by order of court as a homestead to plaintiff and her minor children, absolutely, it appeared that, from the time of defendant’s appointment as administrator till the homestead was set apart, defendant collected the rents of the premises, and paid taxes; that two months thereafter plaintiff demanded possession of him, which, she testified, he refused to give; that in his verified statement to the tax collector he included this homestead property; and that he leased part thereof to another. Held, that the evidence justified a verdict that defendant was in possession when the action was commenced.</p> <p>Ejectment—Landlord as Party Defendant.—Where a defendant in ejectment is in possession of any part of the premises as tenant of another, it is proper to join the latter as party defendant.</p>