Skip to main content
· 7/1/1859

Yount v. Howell

Citations

  • 14 Cal. 465

Syllabus

<p>lx ejectment, the value of improvements, even when defendant holds under color of title adversely to plaintiff, can only be allowed as a set-off to damages.</p> <p>A patent from the United States proves itself. Courts take judicial notice of the signature of the President and of the seal of the government.</p> <p>Where the complaint in ejectment avers that the land sued for is known by the name of “La Jota,” heretofore granted to plaintiff by the Mexican Government, and the patent issued thereon refers to the grant, the proceedings before the Land Commission and United States Court for confirmation, these recitals in the patent support the averment of title through the grant.</p> <p>The patent is in itself, as against the government, evidence of the existence and validity of the grant recited in it, as well as of the relinquishment of all claim of the United States to the land it embraces.</p> <p>The rule of the common law as to the necessity of proof in ejectment, of a legal estate and a right of entry in the plaintiff at the date of the demise laid in the declaration, has no application under our system.</p> <p>It is sufficient in our system if it appear that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the premises at the commencement of the action, and the date of the alleged seizin or possession and ouster is only material when the question of mesne profits is involved.</p> <p>Such profits, when claimed in the ejectment suit, are limited to such as accrue subsequent to the ouster alleged—or in other words, the occupation of the defendant. When they are claimed in an independent suit, the record of recovery in the ejectment, is, as to the title, only evidence of the right of possession of the plaintiff at the commencement of the action in which the recovery was had.</p> <p>It is otherwise at the common law; there, the proof of title being held strictly to the date of the demise laid, the judgment was conclusive of such title.</p> <p>Under our system the judgme

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that allegations that were sufficient to authorize a claim for punitive damages were sufficient to state a claim for bad faith expenses of litigation under a predecessor to OCGA § 13-6-11

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Field

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.