TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Early v. Mannix

Early v. Mannix, 15 Cal. 149 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1860
Judges
Field
Citations
15 Cal. 149
Syllabus
Ik forcible entry and detainer tried in the County Court, on appeal from a Justice’s Court, plaintiff, having obtained a verdict for one hundred and fifty dollars damages, moved that they be trebled. Motion denied, and judgment entered for one hundred and fifty dollars, with restitution of the premises. Plaintiff applies to the Supreme Court for mandamus to compel the Court below to render judgment for treble damages. Held, that the application must be denied, as plaintiff has an adequate remedy by appeal; pending which, plaintiff can enforce so much of the judgment as awards restitution. The judgment can be corrected in this Court, if proper, by trebling the damages.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Field

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.

In an action of forcible entry and detainer, tried in the County Court of Placer, upon an appeal from a Justice’s Court, the plaintiffs obtained a verdict from the jury, with an award of one hundred and fifty dollars as damages. The plaintiffs thereupon moved that the damages be trebled, under the statute. This motion the Court denied, and rendered judgment for the amount found by the jury, with restitution of the premises. The plaintiffs now apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court to render judgment for treble the damages.

The application must be denied. The plaintiffs have a speedy and an adequate remedy by appeal. If, upon the appeal, it shall be determined that the plaintiffs are entitled to a correction of the judgment, this Court can direct it to be made without ordering a new trial. In the mean time, the plaintiffs can enforce so much of the judgment as awards restitution of the premises.

Application denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1901: 11914: 11924: 11954: 119012026peak 1901 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chapman v. Hughes58 P. 298 (Cal. 1901)
  2. Osborn v. Osborn267 P.2d 333 (Cal. 1954)
  3. G. Ganahl Lumber Co. v. Weinsveig143 P. 1025 (Cal. 1914)
  4. Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co.200 N.W. 749 (Mich. 1924) · Dissent

Most recent

  1. Osborn v. Osborn267 P.2d 333 (Cal. 1954)
  2. Michigan Public Utilities Commission v. Michigan State Telephone Co.200 N.W. 749 (Mich. 1924) · Dissent
  3. G. Ganahl Lumber Co. v. Weinsveig143 P. 1025 (Cal. 1914)
  4. Chapman v. Hughes58 P. 298 (Cal. 1901)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list