Miller v. Chandler
ROBERT MILLER v. L. C. CHANDLER
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The Court:
The action is ejectment. The answer contained a general denial, which put in issue the alleged possession of defendants. It also, by way of a separate defense, admitted defendants’ possession, and alleged certain matters in connection therewith, which defendants claimed constituted a valid defense to the action. On the trial, the plaintiff failed to prove possession of the premises on the part of the defendants, for which reason, among others, the latter moved for judgment of nonsuit.
Proof of defendants’ possession was essential to a recovery by the plaintiff. The general denial contained in the answer put in issue all of the material averments of the complaint. The admission of possession contained in the special defense must be confined to that defense, and this, irrespective of the question whether the matters contained in that plea could or could not have been proved under the general denial. (Nudd v. Thompson, 34 Cal. 39 .)
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.