California Supreme Court, 1854

Bequette v. Caulfield

California Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1854 · Heydeneeldt, Murray

4 Cal. 278

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Stephens v. Mansfield (Cal. 1858)
Richardson v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas (Tex. App. 1915)
Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz (Wis. 1900)
House v. Reavis (Tex. 1896)
Richardson v. McNulty (Cal. 1864)
Hubbard v. Barry (Cal. 1863)
Gregory v. Haynes (Cal. 1859)
Waring v. Crow (Cal. 1858)
Turner v. Aldridge (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1857)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch, J. Murray concurred.

We have often held, that possession is evidence [279] of title; but *itis equally true, that possession gives a right of action against a mere trespasser, even where title may be shown to exist in another. So, where a party can show nothing but a prior possession, that reliance may fail, if it be shown that he voluntarily abandoned his possession without the purpose of returning.

In this case, Caulfield’s first claim of possession was answered by the allegation of abandonment, and the jury found against him. Then his present possession is that of a trespasser, if Bequette’s possession was prior to it. S.o the jury found, after it was fairly left to them.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.